Badmovies.org Forum

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/13/19441838-jury-finds-george-zimmerman-not-guilty (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/13/19441838-jury-finds-george-zimmerman-not-guilty)

NOT F**KING GUILTY

Wouldn't be surprised to see if he is shot to death, Revenge plays with emotion well enough to make people do irrational things. My question- the next  OJ Simpson?

I think there were bad choices made all around.  If George Zimmerman would have stayed in his car, then Trayvon would still be alive.  If Trayvon would have continued on to the house instead of deciding to confront George Zimmerman then he still would be alive.

That said, now I guess I'll wait for the hate to start flinging around.

so far, no riots.  I am pleasantly surprised.

That is exactly what I was concerned about might happen if Mr Zimmerman was found not guilty.

      Then, of course, there was the media's bias toward a guilty verdict, with their usual distortions, 4-X, continually showing that picture of Martin as a twelve year-old, instead of how he actually looked....

(http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/politifact%2Fphotos%2Fgame.jpg)

Let's clear that up a little bit.  That's not a picture of Trayvon, that's a picture of a rapper named Jayceon Terrell Taylor.

http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/martin.asp

I think alandhopewell was just making a point, Bushma. I'm pretty sure we all know who is actually in that photo.

re: Did you guys know Zimmerman once accused the police of covering up the beating of a black homeless man, by a white cop's kid? Also, I think the 17 year old thug got what was coming to him. I mean, if you're in my neighborhood at night wearing a dark hoodie in the rain, I'm going to check your ass on point without hesitation. Is this profiling, no, it's common sense.

That's about the size of it, Bushma. I don't see where this is an unreasonable statement.

Of course, there will be those who will accuse others of the "two wrongs don't make a right' school of secretly siding for one side or the other because you didn't take their side, and as usual, throwing gas on the fire until both sides are at each other's throats will be their top agenda. This thing is far from over. for sure.

There's always the future..when some people say something is far from over, they mean it. The only thing with riots, is that sometimes they're just an excuse to smash and loot and have nothing to do with the problem in general. I'm sure that if rioting DOES occur, there will be those who just want a new 60-inch hi-def TV and a new PS 3 or Xbox 360 instead of justice for Trayvon Martin.

I don't know what really happened.  No one does now except for George Zimmerman.  All I do know is that the prosecution's case was so weak it should never have gone to trial.  For that reason alone, I'm glad Zimmerman was found not guilty.

     Thank you for clearing that up.

This has had loads of press coverage here in the uk.

regardless of who's right and wrong here, the way I see it there seems to have been a shift of emphasis, legally, in favour of the right to use deadly force if one fears for one's life in the US. there seems to be a lot of cases emerging where using deadly force will still get a civilian acquitted.

I mean if this guy (http://www.tntmagazine.com/news/world/jury-in-texas-free-a-man-who-shot-an-escort-for-refusing-sex) can get off free then the Trayvon case is a no brainier in comparison, but I gather Texas is not representative of US as a whole...


Not really, IMO. There was never any question that he shot the kid. The OJ case was centered around 'did he actually commit the act?', this one was more 'was the act that was committed justified?' It's a moral minefield and there's very well grounded arguments both for and against the not guilty outcome.

     This took place in Florida.

I think that there are two things that we can reasonably assume to be true:
If George Zimmermann had not followed TM, then the youth would still be alive.
If Treyvon Martin had simply kept walking, he would still be alive.

I don't know that what did happen was a crime.
But I do believe it was a tragedy.

In regards to the acquittal of civilians employing deadly force, the amount of home invasions that have taken place (like the particularly brutal one recently caught on cam in a New Jersey home) and other incidents, gun sales in the U.S. have soared.

And, not to offend anyone, but you have the other side: the rose-colored sunglass-wearing hypocrites on Capitol Hill and Hollywood, AND people like Michael Bloomberg who openly ridicule people who own for self defense as being paranoid. Yet, they sit in homes and mansions guarded by armed individuals 24\7 and see themselves as rational people who speak for the rest of America on gun rights while doing so.

And I for one, will say that if America's elite can either defend themselves or have individuals do so for them, the civilians may also do same. It's YOUR life...

I'm not buying into the gun arguement right here, but SLATE.COM has a nice analysis of how and why he is not guilty under Florida law. 
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2013/07/florida_gun_laws_george_zimmerman_acquittal_shows_danger_of_stand_your_ground.html (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2013/07/florida_gun_laws_george_zimmerman_acquittal_shows_danger_of_stand_your_ground.html)

I think what the news ignores, and many people don't know is that any trial is not "Right vs Wrong" but "Illegal vs Legal".  If they didn't make a legal threshold into illegality, they can't (or shouldn't maybe?) find someone guilty.   
-Ed

Something I was a little surprised to find out was that on last night's CNN interview with Piers Morgan, Rachel Jeantel said in effect that Martin believed he was being followed by a homosexual looking to pick up a young male. Maybe that's the missing component to all this, that Martin assaulted Zimmerman in an incident of gay bashing.

I followed this because it became such a high-visibility issue, including having the President comment on it prior to the trial.  By the evidence presented, I fully agree with the jury:  George Zimmerman is innocent of the crimes he was charged with.




I do not remember any piece of evidence from the trial supporting this.  Did they provide a reason for that hypothesis?

Thanks Andrew, thats what I was trying to fumble through.
-Ed

I don't recall that from the trial either and it surprised me to hear her say that. I just heard some excerpts from the Piers Morgan interview last night re-played on the radio today and when I get home I'm going to see if I can find the entire interview online.

I think several things seemed odd about this trial. Zimmerman's family wasn't allowed in the courtroom as they were potential witnesses yet TM's family was. Evidence that the kid wasn't a pristine youth wasn't allowed. The boy's Dad swore he thought it was his son screaming on that 911 tape yet had to admit that he initially told police he wasn't sure. I was shocked that Zimmerman was found not guilty. Even though ballistics evidence showed that when TM was shot he was close enough to be on top of Zimmerman,as he said he was. I do think that it was a tragedy all around,as Indy pointed out....what ifs on both sides. I was pretty annoyed that the prosecuters said it had nothing to do with race...after swearing that Zimmerman was profiling the boy. This was a media feeding frenzy,as all involved intended it to be.

My question is that when Zimmerman shot Trayvon, could have he shot Trayvon in the arm or legs to make him stop?

When someone is on top of you pounding your head on the concrete and saying "You're gonna die tonight!", you just pull the trigger - at least, that is what I would do in that situation.

Never shoot to wound.  If somebody is crazy enough that you need to shoot them, they might just be crazy enough to shrug off whatever injury you do. 

The exclusion of Zimmerman's family was perhaps done to avoid a possible courtroom conflict with Martin's family. I don't think too many parents would be happy sitting across from the family of the man who shot and killed their only son.

As to the exclusion of Trayvon's somewhat less-than innocent youth, perhaps the court wanted to prevent the old race-behavior stereotypes that also could have played a role in creating a one-sided jury.  This case had that potential all-around.  Just a thought.




Of course the media will do their job..get everyone riled up, wait for the war to start, and then sit back and sip their lattes in their guarded mansions as they laugh their asses off and pat each other on the back for a job well done. When has THAT ever been different?

This is what they do, it's as natural to them as breathing or sleeping, but the paycheck and the opportunity for book and daytime talk show offers dosen't hurt either..they're a bunch of vampires..

Evidence of bad character is very rarely allowed in a criminal trial as it's presumed to be more prejudicial than relevant.

Basically what I was trying to say, but in my infinite "wisdom" I tend to forget how to shorten and make my words more effective. Thanks for doing it for me, lol  :cheers:

I would think that the fact that Treyvon had apparently been in trouble for fighting before would be relevant when the key point in Zimmermann's story is that the young man jumped him and began pounding his head on the ground.  It shows a propensity on the part of the victim to resolve confrontation by means of physical assault.

I also followed this story closely.  I have many questions, who doesn't?  As a non-participant my questions are irrelevant. 
I felt that the jury did their job, particularly under Florida law.

That may arguably be true if Zimmerman knew of Treyvon's propensity for violence, but then he could testify to it himself. There's no need for others to testify to what was in his mind. It's likely irrelevant anyway. If he was reasonably afraid of being assaulted at that moment then it wouldn't really matter whether the person he shot had ever committed an assault prior or not.

P.S. I know nothing about this case and did not pay the slightest bit of attention to it, I'm just bringing up general points of law.

Ever notice the media has programmed people to call Treyvon Martin "Treyvon" whereas George Zimmerman is always "Zimmerman"? Rarely do you hear "Martin and George".

"Trayvon is dead at Zimmerman's hand."

I think even in that small a detail it shows the ongoing manipulation of minds.

In any case, the legal relevancy of TRAYVON MARTIN's past is not lost on us, and that exclusion certainly weakened the defense's case.   

I'm going to leave this here, for all of you to laugh at.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/1000477_600996426633100_1603137746_n.jpg)

WERD.......   :cheers:

For what it is worth, I have testified in a quite a number of homicide, rape and armed robbery cases, sometimes as an "expert witness" sometimes as a "fact witness."

What Rev says here is true in practice, at least in the courts in which I've testified.

Very, very rarely in any felony case is the 'past' of the defendant (or in cases like this one, the victim) admitted.  It simply is not relevant in the vast majority of cases.  The only fact that would matter is if the person who did the killing was in fear for their life AT THE TIME OF THE KILLING.

Further, the jury (or court in general) can only judge the situation by the fact known to the actors at the time.  You cannot use hindsight...which knowing the victim's past would likely be. 

The relevant case law, at least in terms of deadly force involving police, is Tennessee v Garner (1985).  I think it was not the main issue of contention in that case, but I'm pretty sure that was the case where the court specifically stated that facts known to the actors at the time of the incident are the only facts relevant at trial.  Rev, can you correct me on that?

The other thing I don't know is if Tennessee v Garner is the applicable law in civilian deadly force cases.  Rev, any idea on that?

The bottom line, and the argument I have heard countless times in felony trials, is that presentation of past criminal activity is deemed prejudicial...jurors MAY make assumptions of guilt based on knowledge of past behavior rather than deciding THIS CASE.

Rarely, past events are allowed, but even then, they are generally allowed only in a very narrow scope...such as if Zimmerman and Martin had had a previous confrontation, and then it would likely only be to the extent of "Was a police report filed...if so, how was that adjudicated?"  Very cold, factual presentation of documented, "official" facts would the limit.

There are notable exceptions, too.  For example, in 'three strikes' type cases it must be shown, and recorded, that past convictions occurred.  So, for example, if a person was on trial for second offense of something, very clearly it has to be shown they have a first offense, or legally the jury can NOT find them guilty of second offense.

Finally, think about it this way.  Not only does excluding Martin's past protect Martin, but it protects Zimmerman as well.  If the court were shown that Martin had a violent past or a propensity to solve disputes with violence, then it MAY be argued that Zimmerman went into the situation fully expecting not only violence but planning deadly force.  Painting a character one way gives the other actors "motivation" they may or may not have had, at least in the minds of the jurors.

Does that last bit make sense?

Not without researching it. But the principle is simple and you explained it well. Thanks for expanding our understanding of the issue.

Did you guys hear Zimmerman pulled a couple folks from a wrecked vehicle; what a horrible person this Zimmerman.  :smile:

programmed people... Exactly!