Trayvon Martin: 'Shoot first' law under scrutiny

[JimG]

One of the things I dislike about being on a jury is that I’m pretty sure that there is a lot of evidence that we the jury are not allowed to hear. Either side has the ability to ask the court to exclude certain evidence. So I know from the outset that I’m only hearing what has been mutually agreed by both sides, and not hearing a lot of stuff which has been objected to. (Often the jury is sent out of the room while the attorneys argue about what they get to hear.)

Not only that, but both sides will try to avoid selecting jurors who already have read too much about the case. So you end up with a jury which has managed to avoid all the news and which hears only what the attorneys and the court wants them to hear. I can imagine all the pretrial motions for exclusion of evidence in this case.

 

[L_piperatus]

trayvon wasnt spotted breaking into any homes as far as i know. why would he suspect trayvon of being a thief as opposed to someone else?

The answer was given in post #638. Here it is again - I bolded the relevant part:

NBC launches internal probe over edited 911 call in Trayvon Martin shooting
Published April 02, 2012
| FoxNews.com

NBC has launched an internal probe after running an edited version of the 911 call from George Zimmerman – the man who shot and killed Trayvon Martin – that made Zimmerman sound racist.
“We have launched an internal investigation into the editorial process surrounding this particular story,” the network said in a statement to the Washington Post on Monday.
NBC’s “Today” show ran the edited audio of George Zimmerman’s phone call to a police dispatcher in which Zimmerman says: “'This guy looks like he’s up to no good … he looks black.”
But the audio recording in its entirety reveals that Zimmerman did not volunteer the information that Martin was black. Instead, Zimmerman was answering a question from a police dispatcher about the race of the “suspicious person” whom Zimmerman was speaking about.
A transcript of the complete 911 call shows that Zimmerman said, "This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about."
The 911 officer responded saying, “OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?”
“He looks black,” Zimmerman said.
The abridged conversation between Zimmerman and the dispatcher that NBC ran on March 27 has been blasted by media watchdog groups as misleading. Critics have said the edited version was made to suggest that Zimmerman targeted Martin because he was black – an accusation by many that is still under investigation.

 

[Godfollower]

One of the things I dislike about being on a jury is that I’m pretty sure that there is a lot of evidence that we the jury are not allowed to hear. Either side has the ability to ask the court to exclude certain evidence. So I know from the outset that I’m only hearing what has been mutually agreed by both sides, and not hearing a lot of stuff which has been objected to. (Often the jury is sent out of the room while the attorneys argue about what they get to hear.)

Not only that, but both sides will try to avoid selecting jurors who already have read too much about the case. So you end up with a jury which has managed to avoid all the news and which hears only what the attorneys and the court wants them to hear. I can imagine all the pretrial motions for exclusion of evidence in this case.

Actually, no. If I want to introduce a certain piece of evidence (testimony, document, physical object, whatever), the other side has an opportunity to object; and I get a chance to explain why I think I should be able to present it. Then the judge rules on whether the evidence is admissible. There is absolutely not a requirement of consensus; I have rarely had a case in which all sides agreed on what was admissible or not.

But, sure, there are lots of things the jury doesn’t get to hear. E.g., if a defendant is accused of breaking into a bank, you probably won’t be told that he’s been convicted of breaking into banks twelve times in the past – because either he broke into this one or he didn’t, and having broken into others in the past isn’t relevant to that (unless there’s a peculiar way he always breaks in, and that happened this time; but then it is admissible because it does prove something). Once you get to sentencing, the previous convictions are relevant, but you should decide first whether he’s guilty this time.

There are similar rules about all kinds of evidence. Sometimes the judge makes the wrong call, but it’s fair to say that there ought to be rules. You don’t get to testify that you heard from Bob that Susan said Allen told her that he heard Tony say Julie committed the crime; the jury ought to hear it straight from Tony. There are good reasons for excluding evidence, despite what the lawyer-bashers tell you. So, despite what you read in the press, please know that there are good reasons for this sort of thing.

 

[Jerry_Miah]

A transcript of the complete 911 call shows that Zimmerman said, "This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about."

Oh yeah, that’s what Zimmerman, the guy with self-control issues and a past of attacking a police officer, said. Fact is, Trayvon was holding a dangerous package of Skittles candy after engaging in the suspicious activity of buying them from the store. He then ruthlessly walked back toward his relative’s house while dangerously talking to his girlfriend on the phone.

 

[maryjk]

Actually, no. If I want to introduce a certain piece of evidence (testimony, document, physical object, whatever), the other side has an opportunity to object; and I get a chance to explain why I think I should be able to present it. Then the judge rules on whether the evidence is admissible. There is absolutely not a requirement of consensus; I have rarely had a case in which all sides agreed on what was admissible or not.

And many times these decisions are made while the jury is out of the room. So they don’t even know that a question came up or that the evidence was even presented.

Juries are quite in the dark during a trial. (Or at least it seemed that way to me.)

 

[Godfollower]

hazmat;9137211:

trayvon wasnt spotted breaking into any homes as far as i know. why would he suspect trayvon of being a thief as opposed to someone else?

The answer was given in post #638. Here it is again - I bolded the relevant part:

NBC launches internal probe over edited 911 call in Trayvon Martin shooting
Published April 02, 2012
| FoxNews.com

NBC has launched an internal probe after running an edited version of the 911 call from George Zimmerman – the man who shot and killed Trayvon Martin – that made Zimmerman sound racist.
“We have launched an internal investigation into the editorial process surrounding this particular story,” the network said in a statement to the Washington Post on Monday.
NBC’s “Today” show ran the edited audio of George Zimmerman’s phone call to a police dispatcher in which Zimmerman says: “'This guy looks like he’s up to no good … he looks black.”
But the audio recording in its entirety reveals that Zimmerman did not volunteer the information that Martin was black. Instead, Zimmerman was answering a question from a police dispatcher about the race of the “suspicious person” whom Zimmerman was speaking about.
A transcript of the complete 911 call shows that Zimmerman said, "This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about."
The 911 officer responded saying, “OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?”
“He looks black,” Zimmerman said.
The abridged conversation between Zimmerman and the dispatcher that NBC ran on March 27 has been blasted by media watchdog groups as misleading. Critics have said the edited version was made to suggest that Zimmerman targeted Martin because he was black – an accusation by many that is still under investigation.

How is “It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about” the same thing as “It’s raining and he’s breaking into homes”?

Should I be careful never to look around when I’m in a strange neighborhood walking to my parents’ place after buying snacks at a convenience store? Because what the police say is that you should be looking around, staying aware of your surroundings. And, from what we’ve heard so far, Martin had reason to be concerned, because he was being followed by a guy in a truck.

 

[maryjk]

Oh yeah, that’s what Zimmerman, the guy with self-control issues and a past of attacking a police officer, said. Fact is, Trayvon was holding a dangerous package of Skittles candy after engaging in the suspicious activity of buying them from the store. He then ruthlessly walked back toward his relative’s house while dangerously talking to his girlfriend on the phone.

Again…

Wow you were there? You observed all of this?

Alert the police. Jerry was an eye witness.

Or, are you again, simply stating your opinion?

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Do you know?

I just remember the press releasing stories that there was no blood on the sidewalk where this occurred. Did they get it wrong again?

According to at least one attorney associated with the Martin family that I saw on TV, one of the witnesses to a portion of the altercation between GZ and TM saw them fighting in grass.

Going by the information I see on TV. Guess those witnesses will have to be questioned properly under oath and then the jury (if one convenes) will have to determine what or what is true.

If I’m wrong, please correct me.

 

[Godfollower]

And many times these decisions are made while the jury is out of the room. So they don’t even know that a question came up or that the evidence was even presented.

Juries are quite in the dark during a trial. (Or at least it seemed that way to me.)

Exactly. That’s the way it should be.

Suppose we held a trial right now on Zimmerman’s guilt for manslaughter. And suppose the prosecutor put 200 witnesses up saying “I read the papers, I formed my opinion, and Zimmerman tracked down Martin and murdered him.” And, each time, the defense attorney successfully objected because that’s hearsay. At some point, wouldn’t the jury start to form their decision based on the inadmissible evidence rather than the admissible evidence?

Here, we want the jury to look at the statements Zimmerman made to the police; the 911 tapes; the video(s?) of Zimmerman that night, the medical records of both Zimmerman and Martin; the various people who actually saw / heard / etc. what happened; any available CSI stuff; and so on.

But neither side has the right to present inadmissible evidence, hoping that the jury will take it into account during deliberations.

That’s why the jury doesn’t get to hear what’s inadmissible. We, the public, have the right to know that the jury only heard the admissible evidence.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Again…

Wow you were there? You observed all of this?

Alert the police. Jerry was an eye witness.

Or, are you again, simply stating your opinion?

So what are you implying?

That we have no right to discuss the actions that Zimmerman took that night? OR even TM?

People on all sides of the political and racial spectrum are questioning what BOTH sides did that night. And that’s Ok. Infact, we also DO need to talk about whether race WAS a part of this tragedy.
Maybe GZ racially profiled TM. Maybe it was the other way around. Who knows?

YOU were not there either, so you don’t know what was on either side’s mind either. So what all you know, there WAS a lot of stuff went down that Zimmerman or Martin’s family is not saying.

You are not above either.

So again…

What are you imying…?

 

[maryjk]

Exactly. That’s the way it should be.

I agree.

Just as a juror, it is annoying.

And don’t believe it when the judge tells them to ignore what was just said. (Do they really think THAT is going to happen? The jury may not talk about it, but that information is in the back of their mind.)

 

[maryjk]

So what are you implying?

That Jerry tends to come to a thread, says something that he makes up. Then runs for the hills.

Case in point? Hey, Jerry. Still waiting for the proof that:

Martin called 911 and the transcript of that conversation
Zimmerman is a felon and shouldn’t have a concealed permit
Zimmerman’s father pulled strings to get his son off

I am sure you have had time to find the links for those items.

 

[Bocephus]

According to at least one attorney associated with the Martin family that I saw on TV, one of the witnesses to a portion of the altercation between GZ and TM saw them fighting in grass.

Going by the information I see on TV. Guess those witnesses will have to be questioned properly under oath and then the jury (if one convenes) will have to determine what or what is true.

If I’m wrong, please correct me.

Last I checked, concrete sidewalks are not that big. They very well could have been in grass, for the most part. Maybe Zimmerman thought it was concrete when it was a rock?

What I want to know, for all those who presume George’s guilt with little evidence, how do you presume Martin to be totally innocent with no evidence?

Do you really think George had every intention of starting something with Martin?

 

[Jerry_Miah]

Again…

Wow you were there? You observed all of this?

Alert the police. Jerry was an eye witness.

Or, are you again, simply stating your opinion?

Are you sure know the difference between fact and opinion? The uncontested facts and well-cou of this story that I mentioned are:

Zimmerman’s past involves attacking a police officer. Trayvon had just left a local convenience story where he had bought some candy. He was walking back to his relative’s house. He was talking to his girlfriend on the phone, according to cell phone records.

Which part of that do you think is my opinion?

Don’t you want Zimmerman to go on trial, or do you advocate letting him run free?

 

[Jerry_Miah]

Last I checked, concrete sidewalks are not that big. They very well could have been in grass, for the most part. Maybe Zimmerman thought it was concrete when it was a rock?

What I want to know, for all those who presume George’s guilt with little evidence, how do you presume Martin to be totally innocent with no evidence?

We’re not presuming anything except that a trial should be taking place, that Zimmerman should have been arrested and charged. What is your problem with that?

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

We’re not presuming anything except that a trial should be taking place, that Zimmerman should have been arrested and charged. What is your problem with that?

 

[maryjk]

Are you sure know the difference between fact and opinion? The uncontested facts and well-cou of this story that I mentioned are:

Zimmerman’s past involves attacking a police officer. Trayvon had just left a local convenience story where he had bought some candy. He was walking back to his relative’s house. He was talking to his girlfriend on the phone, according to cell phone records.

Which part of that do you think is my opinion?

Don’t you want Zimmerman to go on trial, or do you advocate letting him run free?

Zimmerman’s past involves “resisting officer without violence” and an alcohol education program. So where is the proof that he attacked a police officer. Do you know why he wasn’t charged with violence against a police officer? Earlier you claimed it was because of his father’s former position in another state. That would be opinion. Yet you claim it is fact. Prove it.

I advocate “innocent until proven guilty.” How about you?

And again, have you found those links you claimed to have??? Or are you going to admit that you were lying?

 

[Bocephus]

We’re not presuming anything except that a trial should be taking place, that Zimmerman should have been arrested and charged. What is your problem with that?

He was arrested and no charges have yet been filed. Outside of posting bail, which would probably have fairly small, there would be no difference. Whats your problem with that?

Don’t give me this, “were not presuming anything”. I wasn’t born last night. Those of us who are not presuming anything, have pretty figured out that Martin could be just as easily guilty. It all depends on what Martin did up to the point that physical contact was made.

Z’s guilty, that’s your opinion and your entitled to it. Don’t try and blow smoke and tell me there’s not a fire.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Last I checked, concrete sidewalks are not that big. They very well could have been in grass, for the most part. Maybe Zimmerman thought it was concrete when it was a rock?

What I want to know, for all those who presume George’s guilt with little evidence, how do you presume Martin to be totally innocent with no evidence?

Do you really think George had every intention of starting something with Martin?

Most are simply saying that there is enough evidence to warrant an arrest and trial. What happens after that, is up to the jury.

And I suppose you have already convicted TM as well?

And do YOU think TM (I know, I’m not a psychologist), a 17 year-old with no police record, walking home with food for his brother, is just going to rush a guy whom he doesn’t know anything about with no provocation?

And you think the investigation was totally throrough that day and right afterwards to warrant not even considering Zimmerman being charged?

And are you so worried about crime in this country that you think it is OK for people(supposedly) “not taking any chances” and shooting somebody for no apparent reason at all?

I don’t presume to know what happened that night totally. But:

1. The investigation was NOT thorough. And questions still remain as to what GZ did that fully warrant a grand jury investigation.
2. I simply am fascinated that you seem to give GZ the benefit of the doubt (totally Ok) but not (apparently) Martin.

Fascinating.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Zimmerman’s past involves “resisting officer without violence” and an alcohol education program. So where is the proof that he attacked a police officer. Do you know why he wasn’t charged with violence against a police officer? Earlier you claimed it was because of his father’s former position in another state. That would be opinion. Yet you claim it is fact. Prove it.

I advocate “innocent until proven guilty.” How about you?

And again, have you found those links you claimed to have??? Or are you going to admit that you were lying?

Absolutely. OTOH, the standard should also apply to Martin, as well.

Just because he had had problems at school does not mean that he was a thug criminal like some people have implied. He had NO police record. he was picking up food for his brother.

Goes BOTH ways.