17y/o Killed By Neighborhood Watch/CHL

[ScooterSissy]

This certainly adds to the prosecution's luster:

/url]State Attorney Angela Corey fires information techonology director who raised concerns in Trayvon Martin case

The "concerns" were that the prosecution did not turn over information they had extracted from Martin's phone that did not reflect well on him. The defense did not get it until right before the trial started, asked for more time to review it and for it to be place in evidence. The judge denied this, and postponed a sanctions (against the prosecution) hearing until after the trial.

The IT guy who extracted the info from Martin's phone realized the prosecution was not turning over his reports; and he got worried that he would be later held liable over it, contacted a personal lawyer (who interestingly had worked in Corey's office and did not like her). That lawyer contacted the defense, and that's when the defense became aware of the reports.

Right after closing arguments, Corey fired the IT guy.

Wow!!!!! I hope there's a lawsuit over this one.

[ScooterSissy]

His school record, his calling people racial slurs, the fact that he was suspended for ten days and had been out of school more than he had been in it, the burglary tools found in his possession. The fact that his mother could not handle him and so sent him to his father. He was not a church boy on his way to choir practice. He was nearly a man and was on a downward spiral.

And Zimmerman assaulted a cop and domestic battery. Then he's a thug as well. Thug on thug crime.

Pulease. The assault charge was 8 years prior, when he was 21. He "assualted" an undercover agent that he didn't know was an agent, who was manhandling his friend. The charges were eventually dismissed. LEO doesn't allow dismissal of charges in a real assault.

The domestic issue was purely a civil matter, and both parties had restraining orders issued.

[sking]

This case is very troubling. A 17 year old kid has the right to purchase some snacks and walk home w/o being profiled as a punk. Z's statements calling him a punk and that they always get away were prior to whatever happened that lead to the shooting. Z says that Martin is running away. I've chased a lot of people in my time and people running AWAY don't confront you. They run and hide. I personally believe Z did in fact continue to chase Martin and probably caught up to him. At that point who confronted who? Did Martin sucker punch him for no reason w/o saying anything? Only Z knows. I believe that Z then got his rear end handed to him and that Z was the person screaming for help. He put himself in a position and was not prepared for what transpired. I wish I was the fly on the wall to know what really happened and how they finally met. I am glad I am not on that jury. But then the jury has heard the case in court vs. the media and internet hype and will make their decision based on that which has got to be easier to the constant media attention to this case. I wish them the best as that has got to be a hard decision.

If all the physical evidence was the same and all the eyewitness testimony was the same, but Zimmerman was an off duty cop coming home from the grocery store, would you feel the same about the fight between the two men?

[texanjoker]

Never said I would. This case is very troubling. A 17 year old kid has the right to purchase some snacks and walk home w/o being profiled as a punk. Z's statements calling him a punk and that they always get away were prior to whatever happened that lead to the shooting. Z says that Martin is running away. I've chased a lot of people in my time and people running AWAY don't confront you. They run and hide. I personally believe Z did in fact continue to chase Martin and probably caught up to him. At that point who confronted who? Did Martin sucker punch him for no reason w/o saying anything? Only Z knows. I believe that Z then got his rear end handed to him and that Z was the person screaming for help. He put himself in a position and was not prepared for what transpired. I wish I was the fly on the wall to know what really happened and how they finally met. I am glad I am not on that jury. But then the jury has heard the case in court vs. the media and internet hype and will make their decision based on that which has got to be easier to the constant media attention to this case. I wish them the best as that has got to be a hard decision.

Sounds like you've got reasonable doubt to me -- you'd have to find him not-guilty.

By the way. Suppose it happened just the way you describe, and Z did follow and perhaps even confront M. Assuming the M threw the first punch, and then proceeded to "hand his rear end to him", did Z at that point forfeit his right to self defense?

I agree. I have thought long and hard on this tragedy.Aquittal is.the.correct verdict.

[texanjoker]

This case is very troubling. A 17 year old kid has the right to purchase some snacks and walk home w/o being profiled as a punk. Z's statements calling him a punk and that they always get away were prior to whatever happened that lead to the shooting.

What he said was "punks", not "punk". He was referring to the long list of young black males who had plundered his neighborhood. To him Martin looked like another one cut from the same cloth. How was he to know that he wasn't?

Z says that Martin is running away. I've chased a lot of people in my time and people running AWAY don't confront you. They run and hide. I personally believe Z did in fact continue to chase Martin and probably caught up to him. At that point who confronted who? Did Martin sucker punch him for no reason w/o saying anything?

All you have to do now is explain how, if Z chased Martin, how they ended up by the T when Martin's "girlfriend" testified that he said he was "right by his father's house". Did the obsese out of shape Z chase Martin all the way back to the T? What evidence is there to support that theory?

Only Z knows. I believe that Z then got his rear end handed to him and that Z was the person screaming for help. He put himself in a position and was not prepared for what transpired.

And that is completely irrelevant under Florida law. EVEN IF you are the aggressor (which, under case law requires that you physically touch the other person, not chase them and not insult them), you regain the right to self defense if the other party escalates the violence to the point that you believe your life is in danger or you will suffer severe bodily harm.

If you don't think smacking someone's head on concrete qualifies, then I shudder to think that you are a police officer.

Ask yourself this. Had ANY of your fellow officers been in a similar position, would you have expected them to shoot the suspect?

I wish I was the fly on the wall to know what really happened and how they finally met. I am glad I am not on that jury. But then the jury has heard the case in court vs. the media and internet hype and will make their decision based on that which has got to be easier to the constant media attention to this case. I wish them the best as that has got to be a hard decision.

I followed the trial from beginning to end. I don't think the decision is hard at all. I think the jury is reviewing all the evidence that was entered but never discussed at trial, and once that's completed they will return with either a not guilty verdict or a hung jury.

I agree this should be an acquittal.

[texanjoker]

This case is very troubling. A 17 year old kid has the right to purchase some snacks and walk home w/o being profiled as a punk. Z's statements calling him a punk and that they always get away were prior to whatever happened that lead to the shooting. Z says that Martin is running away. I've chased a lot of people in my time and people running AWAY don't confront you. They run and hide. I personally believe Z did in fact continue to chase Martin and probably caught up to him. At that point who confronted who? Did Martin sucker punch him for no reason w/o saying anything? Only Z knows. I believe that Z then got his rear end handed to him and that Z was the person screaming for help. He put himself in a position and was not prepared for what transpired. I wish I was the fly on the wall to know what really happened and how they finally met. I am glad I am not on that jury. But then the jury has heard the case in court vs. the media and internet hype and will make their decision based on that which has got to be easier to the constant media attention to this case. I wish them the best as that has got to be a hard decision.

If all the physical evidence was the same and all the eyewitness testimony was the same, but Zimmerman was an off duty cop coming home from the grocery store, would you feel the same about the fight between the two men?

A off duty cop is taught to be a good witness first. Chasing somebody in this case would have been a poor decision as there was no life or death emergency.

[RottenApple]

A off duty cop is taught to be a good witness first. Chasing somebody in this case would have been a poor decision as there was no life or death emergency.

Then I guess it's a good thing GZ didn't chase TM, huh.

[RottenApple]

Looks like M2 has been ruled out.

http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/07/zi ... slaughter/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Zimmerman trial jury paused their deliberations at around 6:00PM EST to present Judge Nelson with a question:

“May we please have clarification on instructions regarding manslaughter?”

Nelson announced the question to the parties in open court, and has now recessed court 30 minutes to address the issue with the jury.

The verdict form is here. Final Jury Instructions here.

The implications of this question can only be addressed speculatively. It does, however, strongly suggest that murder 2 has been discarded from the jury’s consideration. All six jurors may be seriously considering manslaughter, or it may be a situation in which 5 jurors believe manslaughter does not apply (presumably because the State has failed to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt) but find they are having trouble convincing the 6th jury of the same.

[WildBill]

Looks like M2 has been ruled out.

http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/07/zi ... slaughter/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Zimmerman trial jury paused their deliberations at around 6:00PM EST to present Judge Nelson with a question:

“May we please have clarification on instructions regarding manslaughter?”

Nelson announced the question to the parties in open court, and has now recessed court 30 minutes to address the issue with the jury.

The verdict form is here. Final Jury Instructions here.

The implications of this question can only be addressed speculatively. It does, however, strongly suggest that murder 2 has been discarded from the jury’s consideration. All six jurors may be seriously considering manslaughter, or it may be a situation in which 5 jurors believe manslaughter does not apply (presumably because the State has failed to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt) but find they are having trouble convincing the 6th jury of the same.

I hope they don't "compromise" with a manslaughter verdict.

[Valor]

And Zimmerman assaulted a cop and domestic battery. Then he's a thug as well. Thug on thug crime.

Pulease. The assault charge was 8 years prior, when he was 21. He "assualted" an undercover agent that he didn't know was an agent, who was manhandling his friend. The charges were eventually dismissed. LEO doesn't allow dismissal of charges in a real assault.

The domestic issue was purely a civil matter, and both parties had restraining orders issued.

Thank you for confirming Zimmerman's past aggressive behavior. And thanks again for inferring young men/boys do stupid stuff and can grow up to be productive citizens. Except in this case, one young person will not have a chance to chart a productive path. Realizing this is a public forum and all are entitled to express their opinion; I am angst by folks on both sides with their vilification and obvious biases of Martin and Zimmerman. FWIW, I challenge the pro-Martinites on liberal leaning boards that spew extreme bias as well.

[clarionite]

Would you assault that person and slam his head into the sidewalk?
quote]

If I believe him to be creepy and he all of sudden began to dig in his pocket for an unknown object, and doing such his weapon was exposed. I too may fear for my life or bodily harm.

If he was reaching in his pocket, and you saw his weapon, you'd know he wasn't reaching for his weapon. You are however reaching for a reason to blame Zimmerman. It was presented in open court that Martin told his friend that he wasn't going to run, because he was home/almost home. Martin wasn't scared enough to have called police. He wasn't scared enough to have gone inside. He was ticked off that he was being followed by a "Cracker". He confronted Zimmerman, this too was presented in open court.

It comes down to what someone else on this thread stated earlier. Some people believe that disrespecting someone by keeping an eye on them, which isn't unusual or illegal, is grounds for assaulting the person disrespecting you. They also believe that it's unfair to prevent you from beating them to death, by shooting you. I suggest that it's not illegal, immoral, unusual or disrespectful to follow someone to be able to give a full accurate report to the police officer you know is on his way because you called that officer. As a matter of fact, I believe it's proper and usual. I know for a fact that (though not presented as evidence, but eluded to so they can confuse the jurors) that it's not illegal to ask what someone new is doing in your neighborhood, especially when it's a neighborhood that has a crime spree going on. I also believe it's not only proper but your duty to do everything within your power to make it home to your family when assaulted. If you take everything given as testimony in this trial, there's only one conclusion. Zimmerman acted reasonable given the circumstances. He was within his rights to defend himself with deadly force.

Edit: Clarified a poorly written sentence.

[VMI77]

This case is very troubling. A 17 year old kid has the right to purchase some snacks and walk home w/o being profiled as a punk. Z's statements calling him a punk and that they always get away were prior to whatever happened that lead to the shooting. Z says that Martin is running away. I've chased a lot of people in my time and people running AWAY don't confront you. They run and hide. I personally believe Z did in fact continue to chase Martin and probably caught up to him. At that point who confronted who? Did Martin sucker punch him for no reason w/o saying anything? Only Z knows. I believe that Z then got his rear end handed to him and that Z was the person screaming for help. He put himself in a position and was not prepared for what transpired. I wish I was the fly on the wall to know what really happened and how they finally met. I am glad I am not on that jury. But then the jury has heard the case in court vs. the media and internet hype and will make their decision based on that which has got to be easier to the constant media attention to this case. I wish them the best as that has got to be a hard decision.

If all the physical evidence was the same and all the eyewitness testimony was the same, but Zimmerman was an off duty cop coming home from the grocery store, would you feel the same about the fight between the two men?

A off duty cop is taught to be a good witness first. Chasing somebody in this case would have been a poor decision as there was no life or death emergency.

Since you evaded the question it's a good guess then that your attitude would be completely different?

[VMI77]

Would you assault that person and slam his head into the sidewalk?
quote]

If I believe him to be creepy and he all of sudden began to dig in his pocket for an unknown object, and doing such his weapon was exposed. I too may fear for my life or bodily harm.

If he was reaching in his pocket, and you saw his weapon, you'd know he wasn't reaching for his weapon. You are however reaching for a reason to blame Zimmerman. It was presented in open court that Martin told his friend that he wasn't going to run, because he was home/almost home. Martin wasn't scared enough to have called police. He wasn't scared enough to have gone inside. He was ticked off that he was being followed by a "Cracker". He confronted Zimmerman, this too was presented in open court.

It comes down to what someone else on this thread stated earlier. Some people believe that disrespecting someone by keeping an eye on them, which isn't unusual or illegal, is grounds for assaulting the person disrespecting you. They also believe that it's unfair to prevent you from beating them to death, by shooting you. I suggest that it's not illegal, immoral, unusual or disrespectful to follow someone to be able to give a full accurate report to the police officer you know is on his way because you called that officer. As a matter of fact, I believe it's proper and usual. I know for a fact that (though not presented as evidence, but eluded to so they can confuse the jurors) that it's not illegal to ask what someone new is doing in your neighborhood, especially when it's a neighborhood that has a crime spree going on. I also believe it's not only proper but your duty to do everything within your power to make it home to your family when assaulted. If you take everything given as testimony in this trial, there's only one conclusion. Zimmerman acted reasonable given the circumstances. He was within his rights to defend himself with deadly force.

And even if none of what you say is true, the prosecution presented no evidence to overcome reasonable doubt, and even said in their own closing statement that no one knows what really happened --an admission of reasonable doubt. A conviction will be purely the outcome of racial politics. If the police had arrived before TM got shot, TM would have been prosecuted for assault, and as an adult too. Even a somewhat honest liberal law professor like Dershowitz says they didn't get past reasonable doubt and that the prosecutors should be prosecuted themselves, and disbarred.

[VMI77]

And Zimmerman assaulted a cop and domestic battery. Then he's a thug as well. Thug on thug crime.

Pulease. The assault charge was 8 years prior, when he was 21. He "assualted" an undercover agent that he didn't know was an agent, who was manhandling his friend. The charges were eventually dismissed. LEO doesn't allow dismissal of charges in a real assault.

The domestic issue was purely a civil matter, and both parties had restraining orders issued.

Thank you for confirming Zimmerman's past aggressive behavior. And thanks again for inferring young men/boys do stupid stuff and can grow up to be productive citizens. Except in this case, one young person will not have a chance to chart a productive path. Realizing this is a public forum and all are entitled to express their opinion; I am angst by folks on both sides with their vilification and obvious biases of Martin and Zimmerman. FWIW, I challenge the pro-Martinites on liberal leaning boards that spew extreme bias as well.

Martin is dead because of the choices he made. All he had to do was go home. A beat down isn't stupid kid stuff. And under the law, Z should go free because there is no evidence to overcome reasonable doubt. This trial is purely about race and the left's cause of "social justice."

[squirrel]

I hope they don't "compromise" with a manslaughter verdict.

I didn't follow every minute of the trial but I didn't see anything that met the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It's all circumstantial and ad hominem with no real proof. How can any rational person return any verdict other than "not guilty" based on the evidence? Was there some bombshell I missed in the trial?

I can understand somebody thinking Zimmerman shouldn't have got out of his car, but that's not illegal.
I can understand somebody thinking Zimmerman should take a beating even if it kills him, but that's not the law.
I can even understand some racist thinking Zimmerman is automatically guilty because he has lighter skin than Martin.
I can understand all those personal opinions, but I can't understand how someone can honestly think the prosecution proved either charge beyond a reasonable doubt as required by law.