Juror: Zimmerman Got Away With Murder

[Johan]

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.

So you're saying there are no circumstances under which it would be reasonable for a person to have fear after noticing a stranger following them?

[LikelyToBreak]

Johan asked:

So you're saying there are no circumstances under which it would be reasonable for a person to have fear after noticing a stranger following them?

People fear their own shadows.  Is that reasonable?  Of course there would be instances of having someone follow you where it would be reasonable to have fear.  But, as soon as you act on that fear by punching them in the nose, you are being unreasonable.  You certainly have the right to fear me, but you do not have the right to punch me in the nose.

Also keep in mind, Trayvon Martin had four minutes to get away.  This was shown by the recordings of the 911 calls.  Plenty of time for him to have just gone home, or have gotten out of the area completely.  He choose to confront the person who caused him fear, rather than just leaving, or calling 911 for help.

[Atheon]

1. Why were there only six jurors? I thought juries were supposed to consist of twelve people. Six is far too few.

2. Why were there no black people on the jury?

[Shiranu]

1. Why were there only six jurors? I thought juries were supposed to consist of twelve people. Six is far too few.

2. Why were there no black people on the jury?

Okay, so it's not only me who thinks it's normally 12.

And yeah, the diversity on the jury was... lacking...

[Nonsensei]

Juries in Florida are 6. Guess its a Florida thing. Probably something designed to reduce hung jury outcomes. Bet it works too.

As to the race of the jurors, apparently no black jury candidates were able to make it past selection. I wonder why.

[PopeyesPappy]

The state of Florida only uses 12 jurors on capital cases. This was not a capital case. All others criminal cases in Florida only get 6 jurors.

As far as blacks go they only make up about 12.5% of the US population. 1 of 6 is 16.67%. Statistically a jury of 6 is unlikely to have a black. The most likely answer though is that the prospective juror pool called for the trial had no blacks without prior knowledge/opinions on the case. A better question is why should it make a difference?

[Shiranu]

Er... did you really just ask how cultural & sexual diversity would make a difference?

I... guess...

(And I don't think the jury should have been half black, half white... I think it should have been a mix of white/brown/black and male/female)

And a hung jury means its doing its job, which is a good thing.

[Johan]

People fear their own shadows.  Is that reasonable?  Of course there would be instances of having someone follow you where it would be reasonable to have fear.  But, as soon as you act on that fear by punching them in the nose, you are being unreasonable.  You certainly have the right to fear me, but you do not have the right to punch me in the nose.

According to Florida law, someone would indeed have the right to punch you in the nose if you did something which made them afraid for their own safety. No obligation to run. No obligation to wait for you to attack first. Perfectly legal under Florida law.

Also keep in mind, Trayvon Martin had four minutes to get away.  This was shown by the recordings of the 911 calls.  Plenty of time for him to have just gone home, or have gotten out of the area completely.  He choose to confront the person who caused him fear, rather than just leaving, or calling 911 for help.

He was on foot. The person following him was in a car. The fastest runner in the world isn't going to outrun a car so 4 minutes ain't much of a head start in that case. Not unreasonable at all to imagine that Martin might have felt trying to run wouldn't work.

[PopeyesPappy]

According to Florida law, someone would indeed have the right to punch you in the nose if you made them afraid for their own safety. No obligation to run. No obligation to wait for you to attack first. Perfectly legal under Florida law.

Bullshit. That is not what the law says at all.

776.013?Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1)?A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a)?The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b)?The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2)?The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a)?The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b)?The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c)?The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d)?The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(3)?A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(4)?A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(5)?As used in this section, the term:
(a)?"Dwelling" means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b)?"Residence" means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c)?"Vehicle" means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

The circumstances in which a person is justifiable using any type of force against another are very limited. Nowhere in the wording does it give anyone the right to punch someone in the face because they don't like being followed. Number 3 on the other hand appears to apply directly to Zimmerman's circumstance.

[Nonsensei]

Er... did you really just ask how cultural & sexual diversity would make a difference?

I... guess...

(And I don't think the jury should have been half black, half white... I think it should have been a mix of white/brown/black and male/female)

And a hung jury means its doing its job, which is a good thing.

Are you suggesting that a racially diverse jury offers something more than a less diverse jury? Do tell.

And I don't see how you can say that a hung jury means its doing its job, especially in cases where there's one hold out. To me hung juries are an indication of a problem with one of the jurors.

[aitm]

He was on foot. The person following him was in a car. The fastest runner in the world isn't going to outrun a car so 4 minutes ain't much of a head start in that case. Not unreasonable at all to imagine that Martin might have felt trying to run wouldn't work.

for god sakes, you been yapping for 8 pages but I wonder if you have read a damn thing. Zimmerman got out of the vehicle when he first spotted him and called he then got out and tried to find him he did not get back in and drive after him. Have you paid no attention? The vehicle is shown in the spot he called from. He then GETS OUT OF THE VEHICLE and starts to look for him.
here is one "reconstuction" not to put any validity to it:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGddNLZ3T9E

here is the 7-11 video, interesting how the first one doesn't show martin with his jeans around his knees like the 7-11 vid does: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WScO9r5INU

they musta been trying not to be prejudicial and sway any whities into thinking he was another jay-z wanna be.


Jesus no wonder it takes 30 pages to get some people to read the story.

[Johan]

According to Florida law, someone would indeed have the right to punch you in the nose if you made them afraid for their own safety. No obligation to run. No obligation to wait for you to attack first. Perfectly legal under Florida law.

Bullshit. That is not what the law says at all.

776.013?Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1)?A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a)?The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b)?The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2)?The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a)?The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b)?The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c)?The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d)?The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(3)?A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(4)?A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(5)?As used in this section, the term:
(a)?"Dwelling" means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b)?"Residence" means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c)?"Vehicle" means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

The circumstances in which a person is justifiable using any type of force against another are very limited. Nowhere in the wording does it give anyone the right to punch someone in the face because they don't like being followed. Number 3 on the other hand appears to apply directly to Zimmerman's circumstance.

Try 776.012

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.

It doesn't say against the other's current use of unlawful force, it says imminent use. As in you don't have to wait for the attack to take place before you are legally able to defend yourself against it.

[Johan]

for god sakes, you been yapping for 8 pages but I wonder if you have read a damn thing. Zimmerman got out of the vehicle when he first spotted him and called he then got out and tried to find him he did not get back in and drive after him.

Where did I suggest that he did? We are speculating on what information Martin had that might have affected his actions. Zimmerman had a vehicle. When Zimmerman got out of if, that vehicle did not cease to exist. Which means Zimmerman could have easily gotten back into it if he needed to. And Martin would have known that.

People keep saying oh he could have just run away. He could have just gotten away. Bullshit. He was followed by Zimmerman for several minutes and wasn't able to get away. When Zimmerman got out of his vehicle, that vehicle still would have been a factor to consider when calculating your chances of getting away successfully from this stranger who was following. Why is that so hard to understand?

[aitm]

](*,)

The person following him was in a car.

no, the person following him had been in a car and was now on foot several hundred feet from the vehicle, surely the kid could have made a few yard by the time the fat man ran back to his vehicle. Jeepers, the kid walked by his safe house. He could have easily called the cops if he felt threatened. Maybe he didn't feel threatened because he intended to bash the guys head in.

[Nonsensei]

](*,)

The person following him was in a car.

no, the person following him had been in a car and was now on foot several hundred feet from the vehicle, surely the kid could have made a few yard by the time the fat man ran back to his vehicle. Jeepers, the kid walked by his safe house. He could have easily called the cops if he felt threatened. Maybe he didn't feel threatened because he intended to bash the guys head in.

We have a winner. The idea that Martin was not scared at all is at least as plausible as the idea that Zimmerman tracked Martin down with the intent to attack him.