Open Thread on Zimmerman Verdict

[qui_est_ce]

Social psychologists have demonstrated time and again in numerous studies that eyewitness testimony is notoriously inaccurate and unreliable even if there are corroborating witnesses. This is due to several reasons, including cognitive expectation and error, motivation, cultural background, visual perception, and so forth. Seeing is NOT believing, but often believing is seeing. See the research of Elizabeth Loftus, for example.

True.

What about the forensic evidence?

 

[qui_est_ce]

I too have pondered that idea. The “creepy *** cracka” revelation came out of nowhere, then the “gay rapist” slant was revealed. Wonder if she’ll keep talking?

I missed the “gay rapist” statement. What was that about?

 

[SwizzleStick]

Social psychologists have demonstrated time and again in numerous studies that eyewitness testimony is notoriously inaccurate and unreliable even if there are corroborating witnesses. This is due to several reasons, including cognitive expectation and error, motivation, cultural background, visual perception, and so forth. Seeing is NOT believing, but often believing is seeing. See the research of Elizabeth Loftus, for example.

What else do we have? Short of video-taping everything, everywhere (and, apparently, that is coming for us) eye-witness accounts are all we have, combined with physical evidence.

 

[BroomWagon]

Yeah, and those other neighbors’ eyewitness testimony were generally discredited, I believe, when one of them admitted they decided who was on top based upon a photo on the news of a 12-year-old Trayvon, and didn’t the other think TM was shot in the back? Neither’s account comported with physical evidence.

These facts all came out in trial anyway - what are the fruits in second guessing it again?

What are the fruits in second guessing it again? This is a discussion forum and from what I understand the motion for a Civil Suit have already been filed. So this may come to trial again in the form of awarding Civil Damages.

Selma Mora, a construction-equipment saleswoman who testified through a Spanish interpreter, said she heard a “soft” crying in pain. The figure in red was on top, she said. What she saw reminded her of a jockey riding a horse.

Jenna Lauer, another witness who testified Thursday, recalled a “surreal” scene, with “yelps” of pain morphing into screams for help. Those cries could be heard in the background of a chilling 911 call Lauer made. On that call, the gunshot that ended Martin’s life can be heard.

articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-06-28/politics/40249002_1_george-zimmerman-zimmerman-trial-trayvon-martin

The picture of a 12 year old Trayvon may have been shown to Dog Boy right after this incident and I’m not sure if he testified, likewise, there were complaints that possibly the police skewed their initial interrogation of “Dog Boy” and may have had leading questions, “Dog boy”, the boy who was walking his dog around this time.

However, points for the defense may be well taken here, there are a number of points such as this one:

Another neighbor, Jeannee Manalo, testified after Surdyka that she believed Zimmerman was on top of Martin. Manalo also described hearing howling, but she couldn’t tell who it was coming from.

Under cross-examination, defense attorney Mark O’Mara asked why she had never mentioned her belief that Zimmerman was on top in previous police interviews. He made her read back a transcript of an interview in which she described only seeing shadows.

Read more: foxnews.com/us/2013/06/26/judge-in-trayvon-martin-case-weighs-police-calls/#ixzz2ZPmDIHZH

So a lot of this points to the Prosecution not building a sufficient case rather than solidly concluding the Defense’s evidence won the case.

Prosecutors want to use the calls to bolster their argument that Zimmerman was increasingly frustrated with repeated burglaries and had reached a breaking point the night he shot the unarmed teenager. Prosecutors played the calls for the judge Tuesday with the jurors out of the courtroom.

The recordings show Zimmerman’s “ill will,” prosecutor Richard Mantei said.

“It shows the context in which the defendant sought out his encounter with Trayvon Martin,” he said.

africanglobe.net/headlines/george-zimmerman-trial-neighbor-testifies-heard-boys-voice-yelling/

Does not seem like a strong angle to build a case. That’s why I think it’s just as easy to conclude, the Prosecution did not have a strong case.

Lastly, no one less than Brett Baier of Fox said many of the other photos of Trayvon are not real or may have been doctored.

 

[SwizzleStick]

I missed the “gay rapist” statement. What was that about?

I need to correct myself. It was just “rapist” not “gay rapist.” I read that term attributed to her somewhere, but it is incorrect per the article and actual video linked below.

Rachel Jeantel Tells Piers She And Trayvon Feared Zimmerman Might Be Rapist
mediaite.com/tv/rachel-jeantel-tells-piers-she-and-trayvon-feared-zimmerman-might-be-gay-rapist/

 

[lcburgundy]

What are the fruits in second guessing it again? This is a discussion forum and from what I understand the motion for a Civil Suit have already been filed. So this may come to trial again in the form of awarding Civil Damages.

My understanding is that a not guilty by way of a self defense criminal verdict makes civil recovery pretty difficult as a matter of law. I think the insurance money from the condo association is all the Martin family will probably see. GZ has few assets to pursue anyway. He isn’t OJ.

 

[SwizzleStick]

She better be careful if she does.

It seem the more she says the worse Martin looks.

If she keeps on talking it might take away the narrative of Al Sharpton and the like.

I agree. She said that she believes Martin hit first.

"Jeantel: I believe Trayvon hit first [VIDEO]

In an interview with the Huffington Post Live’s Marc Lamont Hill, Rachel Jeantel — a key prosecution witness and friend of Trayvon Martin — said she thought it was Martin who had landed the first blow in the altercation with George Zimmerman after Zimmerman tried to tried to detain Martin."…

Source link: dailycaller.com/2013/07/17/jeantel-i-believe-trayvon-hit-first-video/

 

[BroomWagon]

My understanding is that a not guilty by way of a self defense criminal verdict makes civil recovery pretty difficult as a matter of law. I think the insurance money from the condo association is all the Martin family will probably see. GZ has few assets to pursue anyway. He isn’t OJ.

This article talks about Stand your ground. Again, I don’t know if a finding for “Self Defense” has been made.

The bigger threat to Martin’s family would be Florida’s “Stand your ground” law, which wound up playing a small role in the criminal trial. Under the law, if Martin’s family sued, Zimmerman would be entitled to a hearing at which he would be given a chance to show that he used deadly force only because he was in reasonable fear of death or serious injury. He skipped that step before the criminal trial, but he would no doubt take it if he were sued. And if Zimmerman won his “Stand your ground” hearing, he would not only get the civil suit thrown out, but the law also says that whoever sued him would have to pay him attorneys fees, expenses and compensation for any loss of income resulting from the proceedings. That would be a bitter pill for the family to swallow: the man who shot their son to death beating the criminal charges, getting the civil lawsuit dismissed — and then presenting them with a bill.

Read more: ideas.time.com/2013/07/16/a-civil-suit-could-make-zimmerman-pay-or-could-backfire/#ixzz2ZPtB4Lgz

 

[SamH]

The thread is biased with GZ’s perspective on things.

Like yours?

 

[SwizzleStick]

The thread is biased with GZ’s perspective on things.
SamH;10995539:

Like yours?

There is certainly plenty of that.

 

[lcburgundy]

This article talks about Stand your ground. Again, I don’t know if a finding for “Self Defense” has been made.

That is going to be a big disincentive to suing him, especially when the actual recovery prospects are slim pickings anyway. An actual jury verdict that exonerated GZ solely because of his affirmative self-defense claim would no doubt weigh heavily in such a hearing. There is also a good chance a civil trial would get much more into Trayvon’s culpability, and I’m not sure they’d like the results of that. Rachel Jeantel’s recent jaw flapping isn’t helping about thinking he was a perv and Trayvon throwing the first punch won’t help either.

EDIT: The jury in this trial had to find a valid self-defense claim in order to find him not guilty. That was GZ’s affirmative defense. Obviously GZ didn’t claim that TM wasn’t dead or that he wasn’t the one who shot him.

 

[gnjsdad]

I too have pondered that idea. The “creepy *** cracka” revelation came out of nowhere, then the “gay rapist” slant was revealed. Wonder if she’ll keep talking?

Exactly. I suspect she was egging TM on to go deal with that
“creepy *** cracka” .

 

[SwizzleStick]

Exactly. I suspect she was egging TM on to go deal with that
“creepy *** cracka” .

Possibly. She is doing interviews here and there, so she may yet reveal something illuminating and credible.

 

[BroomWagon]

That is going to be a big disincentive to suing him, especially when the actual recovery prospects are slim pickings anyway. An actual jury verdict that exonerated GZ solely because of his affirmative self-defense claim would no doubt weigh heavily in such a hearing. There is also a good chance a civil trial would get much more into Trayvon’s culpability, and I’m not sure they’d like the results of that. Rachel Jeantel’s recent jaw flapping isn’t helping about thinking he was a perv and Trayvon throwing the first punch won’t help either.

EDIT: The jury in this trial had to find a valid self-defense claim in order to find him not guilty. That was GZ’s affirmative defense. Obviously GZ didn’t claim that TM wasn’t dead or that he wasn’t the one who shot him.

But you have no source that actually states the above. Surely, you would have backup for this. Why aren’t there news stories that state this? The Verdict is a finding of “Not Guilty”, I have not seen “Not Guilty by reason of Self-Defense”, one can easily say the Prosecution’s defense was not strong enough.

You can claim a knowledge of the law on this but we do not have any sourced backup.

 

[SwizzleStick]

But you have no source that actually states the above. Surely, you would have backup for this. Why aren’t there news stories that state this? The Verdict is a finding of “Not Guilty”, I have not seen “Not Guilty by reason of Self-Defense”, one can easily say the Prosecution’s defense was not strong enough.

You can claim a knowledge of the law on this but we do not have any sourced backup.

What? How else could the jury find Zimmerman not guilty since we all know he did shoot and kill Martin?

 

[lcburgundy]

But you have no source that actually states the above. Surely, you would have backup for this. Why aren’t there news stories that state this? The Verdict is a finding of “Not Guilty”, I have not seen “Not Guilty by reason of Self-Defense”, one can easily say the Prosecution’s defense was not strong enough.

You can claim a knowledge of the law on this but we do not have any sourced backup.

Read the jury instructions for yourself. That this was a justifiable or excusable homicide (in other words, self-defense) was the only way they could find him not guilty. Nothing else was in dispute.

 

[MaryT777]

I missed the “gay rapist” statement. What was that about?

There was no gay rapist statement.

 

[BroomWagon]

According to the jury’s instructions,** Zimmerman had “no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force” if he reasonably feared for his life or great bodily harm.**

articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-07-16/news/chi-george-zimmerman-trial-20130716_1_juror-b-37-george-zimmerman-zimmerman-prosecutors

Much debate about the jury’s decision Saturday to find George Zimmerman not guilty of murdering Trayvon Martin has focused on Florida’s Stand your Ground law, which allows a person to use deadly force in self-defense even if they can safely retreat.** One juror even cited Stand Your Ground as the basis for his decision.**

Having Stand Your Ground laws is a bad idea because the law can too easily turn into a license to kill when bad blood, not fear, motivates the killing. But the big problem for the prosecution in the Zimmerman case wasn’t really Stand Your Ground.** It was about a broader problem with the law of self-defense—showcasing an aspect of the law that this case urgently shows should change.**

The evidence suggested that Martin was straddling Zimmerman at the moment Zimmerman drew his gun, so Zimmerman could not retreat. That’s why the central aspect of Stand Your Ground didn’t come into play. Instead, what really mattered was who started the fight. Zimmerman only gets to stand his ground, under the jury instruction the judge gave, if he was behaving lawfully in the first place—if he did not attack Martin. And this is a general principle of self-defense. All things being equal, people who start fights don’t get to end them with deadly force unless the victim clearly escalates things to that lethal level.

…

Zimmerman was acquitted because the state couldn’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman started the fight.

slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/07/george_zimmerman_and_self_defense_why_it_was_too_easy_for_him_to_get_off.html

This Slate article seems to affirm Self-Defense is a part of the discussion here but not sure if it means the Jury made a “finding for Self Defense”.

 

[SwizzleStick]

There was no gay rapist statement.

Yes, it was simply a “rapist” statement. I made that correction with this post.

I need to correct myself. It was just “rapist” not “gay rapist.” I read that term attributed to her somewhere, but it is incorrect per the article and actual video linked below.

Rachel Jeantel Tells Piers She And Trayvon Feared Zimmerman Might Be Rapist
mediaite.com/tv/rachel-jeantel-tells-piers-she-and-trayvon-feared-zimmerman-might-be-gay-rapist/

 

[Brendan]

I missed the “gay rapist” statement. What was that about?

From the CNN interview with Jeantel

MORGAN: You felt that there was no doubt in your mind from what Trayvon was telling you on the phone about the creepy *** cracka and so on, that he absolutely believed that George Zimmerman, this man, you didn’t know who he was at the time, but this man, was pursuing him?

JEANTEL: Yes.

MORGAN: And he was freaked out by it?

JEANTEL: Yes. Definitely after I say may be a rapist, for every boy, for every man, every – who’s not that kind of way, seeing a grown man following them, would they be creep out?

She continued:

“And people need to understand, he didn’t want that creepy *** cracker going to his father or girlfriend’s house to go get – mind you, his little brother was there. You know – now, mind you, I told you – I told Trayvon it might have been a rapist.”