Open Thread on Zimmerman Trial

[kelvinf]

Since you left out what “such a doubt” referred to, what you wrote meant this:

[A reasonable doubt] must not influence you to return a verdict of not guilty if you have an abiding conviction of guilt.

Which is precisely the opposite of what the author intended to write.

What the author intended was to say to a juror: if you basically believe the defendant is guilty, but little ideas keep creeping in, barely possible scenarios for which there is no evidence, thoughts of widespread conspiracy by all the witnesses, or the like, those are not *reasonable *doubts and should be *ignored. *

No. I meant this:

[A doubt] must not influence you to return a verdict of not guilty if you have an abiding conviction of guilt.

The kind of doubts were defined. But what a reasonable doubt is wasn’t directly defined. But they mentioned this:

On the other hand, if, after carefully considering, comparing and weighing all the evidence, there is not an abiding conviction of guilt, or, if, having a conviction, it is one which is not stable but one which wavers and vacillates, then the charge is not proved beyond every reasonable doubt and you must find the defendant not guilty because the doubt is reasonable.

1. There must be a conviction
2. It has to be firm.

Only when there is a conviction that fluctuates is the charge not proven beyond reasonable doubt. That seems to be the only place where reasonable doubt comes into the picture.

Anyways, that is just my interpretation. As usual with such things, people will always interpret it differently. That’s the problem with natural languages.

 

[kelvinf]

Seems like this jury deliberations have beaten that of the Casey Anthony case.

 

[St_Francis]

No. I meant this:

[A doubt] must not influence you to return a verdict of not guilty if you have an abiding conviction of guilt.

The kind of doubts were defined. But what a reasonable doubt is wasn’t directly defined. But they mentioned this:

On the other hand, if, after carefully considering, comparing and weighing all the evidence, there is not an abiding conviction of guilt, or, if, having a conviction, it is one which is not stable but one which wavers and vacillates, then the charge is not proved beyond every reasonable doubt and you must find the defendant not guilty because the doubt is reasonable.

1. There must be a conviction
2. It has to be firm.

Only when there is a conviction that fluctuates is the charge not proven beyond reasonable doubt. That seems to be the only place where reasonable doubt comes into the picture.

Anyways, that is just my interpretation. As usual with such things, people will always interpret it differently. That’s the problem with natural languages.

So we agree I was unsure what you were thinking given what you’d quoted.

 

[St_Francis]

The people here who appear to be arguing that Zimmerman is guilty all seem to be ignoring a huge fact:

That Martin was straddling Zimmerman, pounding his head into the sidewalk and punching him., and that Martin did not stop even when the neighbor called out that he was calling the police.

That whole bashing his head into the sidewalk would quite rightly put Zimmerman in fear of bodily injury or death, no? And so this was rightfully self-defense.

Consider too the difficulty of aiming when someone is straddling you and punching you or beating your head into the sidewalk. Zimmerman probably just shot when he had the chance and wasn’t even trying to aim to kill, just shoot so the attack would stop.

So with all the discussion of the facts as you all present them, why do you leave out this one, huge, glaring fact which is why Zimmerman shot at all?

Why do you say, Zimmerman should have stayed in his truck? Why not say Martin should have stopped bashing Zimmerman’s head into the sidewalk?

 

[BroomWagon]

Too many posts but just now on Judge Jeannine, Fox just brought up a point I’ve thought of before, the gun in the holster of Zimmerman is to Z’s back, so how do they both fight for it?? That part doesn’t hold up to well.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Too many posts but just now on Judge Jeannine, Fox just brought up a point I’ve thought of before, the gun in the holster of Zimmerman is to Z’s back, so how do they both fight for it?? That part doesn’t hold up to well.

This was a key point of the prosecution. The point was also how could Zimmerman get the gun out of his holster if he’s laying on it.

 

[kelvinf]

Jury asks question regarding manslaughter.

 

[St_Francis]

This was a key point of the prosecution. The point was also how could Zimmerman get the gun out of his holster if he’s laying on it.

Martin is straddling Zimmerman, facing him. He sees the gun and goes after it with his right hand, leaning on his left hand for balance. Zimmerman fends him off with his left hand while with his right hand goes after the gun himself. Since they are facing each other, their right hands are on opposite sides.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Martin is straddling Zimmerman, facing him. He sees the gun and goes after it with his right hand, leaning on his left hand for balance. Zimmerman fends him off with his left hand while with his right hand goes after the gun himself. Since they are facing each other, their right hands are on opposite sides.

But how does Martin see the gun if Zimmerman is laying on top of it? And how does Zimmerman manage to get it out of his holster?

 

[St_Francis]

Martin is straddling Zimmerman, facing him. He sees the gun and goes after it with his right hand, leaning on his left hand for balance. Zimmerman fends him off with his left hand while with his right hand goes after the gun himself. Since they are facing each other, their right hands are on opposite sides.

Oh, dear… I realized I should have made it clear that this was sheer speculation on my part, answering the question, how could he have…

Sorry, I should have made that clear in that same post.

 

[styrgwillidar]

I have not gone through this entire thread. I believe Zimmerman is guilty. The teenager was unarmed, he was not in the process of breaking into a car or a house, or attacking or even following someone. If Zimmerman had stayed in his car he would never been injured and the 17 year old boy would not have died. He was neighborhood watch, not neighborhood cop. I don’t care if the kid had a criminal record, I don’t care if he would have a been a gang member for that matter. Zimmerman was not the police, he had no business getting out of his car. The 17 year was not in the process of committing any crime -its not like he was trying to help someone who was being assaulted by the kid.

He chose to get out of the car, when he got in over his head he used lethal force. Had he stayed in the car no one would have died that night and no one would have injured. He was stupid and a kid payed with his life. He needs to go to jail.

Zimmerman was stupid to care about his neighbors, to actually inconvenience himself by stepping up and forming the neighborhood watch, for actually reporting suspicious characters. He really should have looked the other way vice calling the police. And he certainly was out of line by attempting to get the information the dispatcher asked for.

Yes, all the law abiding should have their behavior constrained to accommodate the actions of criminals. Always stay in your car, never get out except in your own driveway or garage or at your destination.

Sorry, the catechism of the catholic church teaches that life is sacred-- beginning with our own. There is no sin in defending our own lives when threatened.

A young man is dead, and it is entirely possible he is dead because he chose to attack someone. That is what the jury will decide-- is Zimmerman’s account plausible.

 

[styrgwillidar]

In related news, the IT director in the state attorney’s office who found and decrypted the text and images in January which the prosecution initially denied having and then delayed turning over until 2 days before the trial has been fired.

jacksonville.com/news/metro/2013-07-13/story/state-attorney-angela-corey-fires-information-techonology-director-who

This is the guy who got more and more uncomfortable that the prosecution had not turned over evidence to the defense and became concerned he could be liable for aiding and abetting the withholding of discovery.

things that make you go … hmmmmmm

 

[kelvinf]

In related news, the IT director in the state attorney’s office who found and decrypted the text and images in January which the prosecution initially denied having and then delayed turning over until 2 days before the trial has been fired.

jacksonville.com/news/metro/2013-07-13/story/state-attorney-angela-corey-fires-information-techonology-director-who

This is the guy who got more and more uncomfortable that the prosecution had not turned over evidence to the defense and became concerned he could be liable for aiding and abetting the withholding of discovery.

things that make you go … hmmmmmm

The judge said she will revisit the issue after the trial.

 

[St_Francis]

But how does Martin see the gun if Zimmerman is laying on top of it? And how does Zimmerman manage to get it out of his holster?

So I looked at the Zimmerman reenactment video. What Zimmerman said was his gun was on his hip, just behind where the side seam of one’s slacks would be.

According to Zimmerman, Martin went for the gun and Zimmerman trapped Martin’s arm with his arm. Then, somewhat releasing Martin’s arm as he did this, Zimmerman slid his hand up his side and grabbed the gun out of the holster and shot.

I looked into the holster. There are these waistband holsters which don’t have a strap that goes over the end of the pistol the way the holsters we see police officers using. All it is is like an open pocket for the tube end of the pistol somewhat wider at the top to accomodate the trigger area.

 

[St_Francis]

The judge said she will revisit the issue after the trial.

How can she do that?

 

[Julian_Bashir]

It is also not completely certain that Martin was the first one to confront Zimmerman. It could have been the other way around and Martin may have been fighting back for his life.
We will never know for sure, as there are no good witnesses who saw or heard the whole thing. I don’t consider Trayvon’s phone partner(Jenteal?) to be helpful at all one way or the other. I come at this as a mother with a 17 and 18 year old.
There are many variations as to what really happened and Zimmerman’s account may not be completely accurate but we will never know for sure.
I wish this had remained a local media case and not garnered such national attention.
Tragic all the way around.
I do feel the 2nd degree murder charge too high as we don’t know for sure what happened/who started it, and I don’t think Zimmerman set out intending to shoot Martin.
I do wonder if he wanted to apprehend/detain Martin until the police arrived, and things went badly south after that.

And even without knowing 100% for sure, you only convict someone if they are guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. If they are even a little unsure, they are supposed to acquit.

People complain all the time of people unfairly jailed, and yet we have people convicting a guy and ignoring the law. That sounds too much like the President for my taste.

If we throw the law out even when we don’t like it, we run the risk of having it abused against us.

 

[MaryT777]

Zimmerman was stupid to care about his neighbors, to actually inconvenience himself by stepping up and forming the neighborhood watch, for actually reporting suspicious characters. He really should have looked the other way vice calling the police. And he certainly was out of line by attempting to get the information the dispatcher asked for.

Yes, all the law abiding should have their behavior constrained to accommodate the actions of criminals. Always stay in your car, never get out except in your own driveway or garage or at your destination.

Sorry, the catechism of the catholic church teaches that life is sacred-- beginning with our own. There is no sin in defending our own lives when threatened.

A young man is dead, and it is entirely possible he is dead because he chose to attack someone. That is what the jury will decide-- is Zimmerman’s account plausible.

Neighborhood watch captains are not police officers. If Zimmerman is acquitted there is an important boundary to be learned between acting as a police officer with perceived suspects and being a police officer.

 

[St_Francis]

No one should end up dead from a neighborhood watch captain.

Nor should a Neighborhood Watch captain end up beaten and in fear of his life.

You seem to be taking extraneous aspects of the situation and applying them. What about the central fact: that Martin bashed Zimmerman’s head against the sidewalk and punched him?

How safe would you feel if someone were straddling you and beating your head against a sidewalk?

 

[Jeanne_S]

Forensics evidence showed that the bullet wound to TM as it entered and the residue on his shirt indicated a distance of apprx. four
inches between the shirt and his chest.This indicated TM being on top of GZ.If the positions were reversed,the distance would be nil.

 

[kelvinf]

How can she do that?

Ok, I paraphrased that poorly.

Judge Debra Nelson said she would revisit the matter at the trial’s end