[bingy]

I am starting this thread to get everyone's opinion on what happened in this trial. I personally had watched days worth of video and am outraged by the fact that Zimmerman did not get convited of at least manslaughter. I say this because first the police dispatcher told him to back off and move out of the area and second, Martin had no weapon on him (unless you want to call Skittles a weapon). Please do not turn this into a flame war or I will have this topic shut down immediately.

Source

[macosxnerd101]

This was far from a clear cut case. I think at every point, each party had the opportunity to do something to prevent this. Zimmerman shouldn't have followed. Martin shouldn't have been beating his head into the pavement. The autopsy reports show that Martin didn't have wounds reflective of being assaulted and battered by Zimmerman. In contrast, Zimmerman had wounds consistent with being assaulted. Toxicology also reports that Zimmerman had been using drugs recently before being killed.

Quote

Basically, the medical examiner did not see any cuts or bruises on Martin’s hands that would have most likely resulted from a physical struggle with Zimmerman. Zimmerman claims he was assaulted by Martin and that Martin struck his head against the pavement. According a Sanford Fire Department report, Zimmerman had "abrasions to his forehead," "bleeding/tenderness to his nose," and a "small laceration to the back of his head."
...
Also included in Trayvon Martin's autopsy report is a toxicology report, which shows Martin had 1.5 nanograms of THC – the active ingredient in marijuana – and 7.3 nanograms of another THC substance found in his blood. Traces of cannabis – marijuana – were also found in his urine. The problem with the toxicology report is it doesn’t indicate exactly when the drugs were used and whether Martin was on drugs the night he was killed.

The way the prosecution handled this case though astounds me. They absolutely should not have withheld evidence.
Cite: http://www.cnn.com/2...ring/index.html

Quote

early 2013, he noticed information was missing.

Concerned that attorneys did not have all the information they needed to prepare the case, he said, he reported his concerns to a State Attorney's Office investigator and later to prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda.

Kruidbos said he generated a report that was more than three times the size of the one that had been handed over.

For example, Kruidbos said that 2,958 photos were in the report given to the defense but that his report contained 4,275 photos.

The fact is, the judge is considering sanctions against the prosecution post-trial. Cite: http://www.cbsnews.c...ons-post-trial/

And then add on top of that how flaky the witnesses were. It was ridiculous.

Honestly, I think this trial was so poorly conducted by the prosecution that there should have been a mistrial. Even if Zimmerman was convicted, he had ample grounds for appeal.

Given the way the prosecution conducted the case and that burden of proof lies on the prosecution, I don't think an acquittal was unreasonable here. I'm not saying Zimmerman didn't deserve at least an aggravated assault charge, but I don't think felony murder was appropriate either.

Again- every party was in the wrong here.

[bingy]

Mac,

I agree both sides messed up on their cases, but manslaughter is not a felony murder charge. Here in PA, you get charged with manslaughter if you you kill someone with your car by accident. This is why I feel he should have at least been convicted of manslaughter. In my opinion, the only thing this acquittal is going to bring forth is more cases of this happening all over the state.

[ConciselyVerbose]

The marijuana being claimed to mean anything is a joke. I think, legally speaking, it came down to who started the physical confrontation. If it was Zimmerman the stand your ground law would not have applied, but that could not be proven, so I'm not sure the jury had a choice.

[modi123_1]

I watched as little of the chum-feed as possible, and find myself fairly apathetic to the whole trial in light of the rote murders that occur each day. I have not been compelled to pour over court documents, testimonies, or construct my own timeline of the events after data clustering key moments of the event. While it is unfortunate a young person died the accused was cleared by a jury of his peers in light of the prosecutor's evidence, case, wording, etc.

[macosxnerd101]

I came across this link (which does cite the Florida law) summing up Manslaughter in Florida pretty well. The moment a gun entered the picture, manslaughter became a first degree felony, requiring a minimum of 9.25 years if convicted.

It is interesting to note the Florida definition of Justifiable Homicide, which is a legal defense against a manslaughter charge.

Quote

Justifiable Homicide

The killing of a human being is justifiable homicide and lawful if done while resisting an attempt by someone to kill you or to commit a felony against you.

I think in light of the poor job done by the prosecution, along with the clarity of Florida law, the jury couldn't give him manslaughter. The sufficient condition to convict him on that charge simply had not been met.

[creativecoding]

Quote

Also included in Trayvon Martin's autopsy report is a toxicology report, which shows Martin had 1.5 nanograms of THC – the active ingredient in marijuana – and 7.3 nanograms of another THC substance found in his blood. Traces of cannabis – marijuana – were also found in his urine. The problem with the toxicology report is it doesn’t indicate exactly when the drugs were used and whether Martin was on drugs the night he was killed.

Ah, that just bugs me so much. It plays off the fact that not everyone knows exactly how much a nanogram is. To put this into perspective, the legal limit for driving in Washington is 8 nanograms. You have to have more than 15 nanograms to show up as positive on a federal drug test. After smoking you'll have easily over hundreds of nanograms. 1.5 means he smoked about a month ago, or was in a room with another person smoking in it for 5 minutes.

So no, 1.5ng doesn't indicated exactly when the drugs were used, but it definitely says that he wasn't high on marijuana the night he was killed.

I haven't been following the case closely enough to form an opinion however. I just had a bone to pick with that statement.

[ConciselyVerbose]

creativecoding, on 14 July 2013 - 11:10 PM, said:

Quote

Also included in Trayvon Martin's autopsy report is a toxicology report, which shows Martin had 1.5 nanograms of THC – the active ingredient in marijuana – and 7.3 nanograms of another THC substance found in his blood. Traces of cannabis – marijuana – were also found in his urine. The problem with the toxicology report is it doesn’t indicate exactly when the drugs were used and whether Martin was on drugs the night he was killed.

Ah, that just bugs me so much. It plays off the fact that not everyone knows exactly how much a nanogram is. To put this into perspective, the legal limit for driving in Washington is 8 nanograms. You have to have more than 15 nanograms to show up as positive on a federal drug test. After smoking you'll have easily over hundreds of nanograms. 1.5 means he smoked about a month ago, or was in a room with another person smoking in it for 5 minutes.

So no, 1.5ng doesn't indicated exactly when the drugs were used, but it definitely says that he wasn't high on marijuana the night he was killed.

I haven't been following the case closely enough to form an opinion however. I just had a bone to pick with that statement.

That combined with the fact that it should have no bearing whatsoever on this case. Even if he had been, it really doesn't have much of an impact pm anything.

[jon.kiparsky]

Quote

Martin shouldn't have been beating his head into the pavement.

The phrase "self-defense" has come up more than once in the course of this trial. Did Trayvon Martin not have a right to self-defense, when being pursued by an armed madman?
Even supposing that Zimmerman's story were true (which we must suppose, since it's been accepted by a jury as fact), and Martin subjected him to all sorts of grievous physical bettery - does a citizen not have the right to defend himself against an attack in the night?

[jon.kiparsky]

macosxnerd101, on 15 July 2013 - 12:10 AM, said:

In contrast, Zimmerman had wounds consistent with being assaulted.

No, there's no indication that Martin committed an assault.

Quote

At Common Law, an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.

An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm.

cite

The assault was carried out by Zimmerman. Anything Martin did was self-defense.

Quote

Toxicology also reports that Zimmerman had been using drugs recently before being killed.

Utterly irrelevant.

Quote

Again- every party was in the wrong here.

Utter nonsense. Walking home is not a crime, and Zimmerman was not a cop. Zimmerman had no business being where he was, doing what he was doing, and for him to assault and murder a child does not put that child in the wrong.

[depricated]

I believe we don't have enough information to truly form an educated opinion on the matter.

There are two important points that are relevant:

Point 1: Martin and Zimmerman engaged in a violent physical altercation.
Point 2: Zimmerman won the fight.

We cannot know the truth of the matter by any natural means. We can choose to believe the story as presented by the Defense, as presented by the Prosecution, as presented by the Media, or we can simply think for ourselves. Grasping for sensational phrasing like calling Zimmerman an "armed madman" or crying foul that all Martin had to defend himself with was skittles, just makes me believe you're watching too much Nancy Grace and aren't capable of critical thought yourself.

Realisitically, Martin appears to have attempted to bash Zimmerman's head in. Head trauma can be worse than mortally wounding, it can be crippling. The right blow could have done worse than kill Zimmerman and addled him for the rest of his life. By all means, if someone is attempting to murder or cripple you you have every right to defend yourself against it by any means necessary.

Both parties were clearly in the wrong. Zimmerman should have stayed away, should not have initiated contact, waited for police, should not have instigated the encounter. At the same time, and this is what's being overlooked by everyone stroking themselves to the idea that Martin is a victim: Treyvon Martin should have done the same. He should have called for police, not engaged Zimmerman, and kept his distance.

It's unfortunate that a kid died, but a trial by jury of his and our peers have concluded that Zimmerman's actions were justified (or at least did not fit the charges levied against him).

This post has been edited by depricated: 15 July 2013 - 04:35 AM

[bingy]

Depreciated,

Please tell me how someone can defend themselves against a gun when all they had available to them was their hands, feet, arms, legs, an energy drink, and a bag of skittles. This information was made widely available to the public.

[no2pencil]

I have not followed this at all, & I stand in agreement wit the 'dispatcher' remark. However as it was put by a caller to our local radio station :

"This is a situation of two stupid people running into one another, & now we all have to hear about it".

Personally, I'd rather talk about Temar Boggs story, than these two knuckleheads. We should reward bravery & heroics, not obsess with idiots.

[depricated]

bingy, on 15 July 2013 - 05:46 AM, said:

Depreciated,

Please tell me how someone can defend themselves against a gun when all they had available to them was their hands, feet, arms, legs, an energy drink, and a bag of skittles. This information was made widely available to the public.

depricated said:

Grasping for sensational phrasing like calling Zimmerman an "armed madman" or crying foul that all Martin had to defend himself with was skittles, just makes me believe you're watching too much Nancy Grace and aren't capable of critical thought yourself.

emphasis added

Also, I've disarmed a shotgun from a man who had it pointed at my head. I was younger than Martin at the time.

This post has been edited by depricated: 15 July 2013 - 04:58 AM

[xclite]

depricated, on 15 July 2013 - 07:57 AM, said:

Also, I've disarmed a shotgun from a man who had it pointed at my head. I was younger than Martin at the time.

For every one person that's pulled this off, how many just die? Sorry we aren't all ninjas and don't reach your standard for badassery.

The idea that somehow the typical person has a reliable or even hopeful recourse against a gun seems unfounded.

I also think about how many times I've walked home late at night, looking at houses BECAUSE THEY'RE THERE. The whole situation sucks. It would be interesting to know what actually happened when Zimmerman confronted Martin.