George Zimmerman-Is there no end with this guy??

[ogre]

Originally Posted by don1945

I was one of the people who thought he was innocent in the TM deal, but now I am not so sure.

Originally Posted by TreeBeard

I was on the fence as well, therefore, reasonable doubt. Knowing what I know now, he should have been convicted and TM was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Originally Posted by HappyTexan

Too bad he can't go back on trial given what has happened since then. The outcome might be different knowing today what we know now about this guyi

The quotes above are a few examples of a way of thinking I’m seeing here. This view seems to go something like: He’s guilty because he seems like the kind of guy who would have done something violent.

That’s a seriously bad reason for convicting someone.

Suppose some guy has five convictions for robbing banks. Suppose somehow he’s out of prison. (Not sure how likely that is after five such convictions, but suppose.) Now suppose that tomorrow a bank is robbed just down the street from this guy’s house. At first this guy might seem a likely suspect, but not on closer inspection. Maybe he’s not charged with that robbery, and he’s certainly not convicted, because it turns out that there is zero evidence that he committed that robbery. In fact there’s evidence that he did not.

Then suppose that a year from now this guy commits a sixth bank robbery. In spite of the evidence that he did not commit the robbery in Jan. ’15, do you now assume that he must have done so after all? You know, just because his history shows that he always has been and apparently always will be prone to robbing banks. So you look back a year from now and assume that he must have committed the robbery in Jan. ’15 even though the evidence says he did not, just because he’s a bank-robbin’ kinda guy. Is that what you assume?

That’s what you’re doing in the Martin case if you say you’re changing your mind about thinking GZ was innocent because now he seems like the kind of guy who would have been guilty. Even though the evidence says that GZ broke no law in the TM case.

Food for thought.

[ogre]

Originally Posted by jim9251

If he was smart he would have moved to a secluded place in Wyoming. But then...

After the trial was over, I was thinking maybe North Dakota. But, same idea.

[ogre]

Originally Posted by Blondebaerde

Having served on a jury for the first time, mid-December just past, there is a big difference between "Not Guilty" and "Innocent". In fact, defense counsel made a point to clarify that with the jury pool before I and six others were selected. Defendant was Not Guilty, btw, though otherwise clearly a dirtbag in our minds (the jury). Justice was served, though, based on the case's merits.

Thus, in my observation of the case the other year, Mr. Zimmerman is not "Innocent" of much, by a long shot. Just the opposite. Of the charges? "Not Guilty" per the jury, clearly!

Exactly. I once had a similar experience serving on the jury for a civil case. The guy who had the best case legally was clearly a scuzzbag. The man testifying for the other side seemed like a nice guy. During deliberations, some jurors were torn about finding against the nice guy, but that was what we did. In that case, the law clearly favored the scummy loser. So we, correctly, found in his favor, based on the law, not personal sentiments.

[Above Average Bear]

Originally Posted by mrmondaynight

OJ got off too

Agree with you there, that was one giant miscarriage of justice.

[ogre]

Originally Posted by catdad7x

I agree, and I thought that even before the verdict came down. I still think he might have been convicted of a lesser charge. But I suppose the Prosecutors would have been criticized for under-charging him had they not gone after the murder conviction. A no-win situation perhaps.

What the evidence—not speculation, but the actual evidence—makes about as clear as this could be to anyone who was not there to witness every moment of the encounter, is that at the time the police dispatcher told GZ they didn’t need him to keep following this guy, GZ then broke off from following Martin. Then the phone conversation continued for several more minutes as GZ and the dispatcher discussed the location where GZ should meet officers when they arrived in the area.

GZ had initially spotted TM near the front gate of the complex. When TM started running, he ran in the direction of the house where he and his father were staying, which was near the back of the complex, essentially in a different part of the complex from the vicinity of the front gate, where GZ had left his car. At this point GZ was walking back toward his car parked near the front gate, while TM was heading away from GZ, toward the house at the back of the complex.

TM arrived back at the house, but instead of going inside and letting that be the end of it, TM went back around toward the front side to look for GZ. When he found GZ, TM approached GZ and then attacked him suddenly with a sucker-punch, immediately knocking GZ to the ground, pinning him down with that MMA “pound-’n’-ground” straddling pin, and started pummeling him.

GZ claimed that the final move that led him to shoot TM was when TM started reaching to take his gun away from him. There’s not much evidence one way or the other about that claim, but if it happened that way, it’s basically a bonus as a legal argument in GZ’s favor. Despite preconceived notions people might have that it’s never all right to shoot someone who’s unarmed, the law disagrees. In fact, with or without an attempt by TM to take GZ’s gun, the pounding TM was dishing out—a scenario supported not by speculation but by the evidence—was easily enough of a severe threat to GZ for the law to allow GZ to use deadly force in self-defense.

The evidence indicates that TM, not GZ, initiated the face-to-face encounter, after the two had gone off in opposite directions but TM went back looking for GZ. With GZ’s never having gotten any closer to TM than following him in his car for a couple of minutes, and since even that initial encounter was over with until TM went back and attacked GZ, there’s nothing there in the way of any legal violation by GZ that would have legally supported TM’s actions. Nothing. Nada. Zilch.

So, yes, it’s true that Zimmerman was over-charged, but not just because the charge was a serious as manslaughter. No matter what you or I or Jane L. Customer who lives down the street might think of Zimmerman personally, considering only the legal issues, he was over-charged the moment any charge at all was brought.

[ogre]

Originally Posted by Irishiis49

The only people that "misunderstood" George were the jury...

Not really. For this reason:

Originally Posted by Above Average Bear

. . . the evidence of TM assault upon GZ in the form of pictures and medical testamony. I wasn't there and to my knowledge you weren't there when it happened so we, both, have to view what happened through the lens of evidence presented at trial. That evidence leads me to believe that GZ was assaulted by TM and was justified in shooting him.

Originally Posted by GoFigureMeOut

I think the jury made the right call because they had to make a decision based on evidence, not emotion.

But then you lose me with your next observation, GoFigure:

Originally Posted by GoFigureMeOut

However, even if Trayvon was the biggest piece of crap kid on the planet, he didn't deserve to die. It wasn't Zimmerman's place to confront him. He was a citizen, not a cop.

Originally Posted by Irishiis49

I really find it hard to believe that anyone white or black feels Trayvon got what he deserved(death)...you can think the jury did the right thing...but you step into the fringe camp with the other sides cop haters when you believe death is deserved in . . . [the] Martin [case]

I guess it depends what you mean by “deserve” to die. As I’ve said above, I don’t get heavily emotional about these sensational legal cases, so I’m not going to judge Trayvon Martin’s character. That means I’m not about to say he “deserved” to die because he seemed like a thug or some such notion.

However, if you follow the thinking of GoFigure’s observation about why the jury “made the right call,” you’ve got to base this on evidence, and on what the law says about self-defense. Based on those considerations, TM may not have “deserve”[d] to die because of his character, but the evidence and the law say that killing him under the circumstances was allowable under the law.

[ogre]

Originally Posted by JohnnyMack

Poor ol Georgie should be in prison for stalking and manslaughter . . .

Originally Posted by NLVgal

Any way you slice it, it was manslaughter, if not criminally negligent homicide. HE put them both in that situation against the advice of the authorities.

No legal grounds for a manslaughter charge. It’s not automatically manslaughter just because someone does something, even something many might consider irresponsible, even something against the law (though there is zero evidence that Zimmerman broke any law), that happens to set off a cascade of events that eventually culminates in a death.

Looking at NLVgal’s second sentence, if you look at my synopsis two posts above (post 95), about what the evidence indicates happened, in fact GZ did follow the “advice of authorities” and break off from following Martin. From a legal standpoint, it was Martin who “put them both in that situation,” when GZ was no longer anywhere around and TM went back looking for GZ and attacked him.

Originally Posted by NLVgal

He should not have put himself and Trayvonn in that situation in the first place.

Again, the evidence indicates that Martin, not Zimmerman, put them both in that situation, when Martin arrived back at the house, while Zimmerman was walking the other way, on the phone with the dispatcher, and instead of going into the house and letting that be the end of it, Martin went back looking for Zimmerman and suddenly attacked him when he found him.

Originally Posted by tinytrump

I don't care about color on this one- it was a kid and a grown man who did not follow the 911-instructions- he assumed or profiled and he was out of place. he had one job... to report.

Not supported by evidence. Have you actually read the details of the case? Did you watch the trial?

Originally Posted by mrmondaynight

You're not this dense, man.

Had Zimmerman followed a woman in his car on a rainy night, he'd be labeled a stalker.

You might label him a stalker, but the law wouldn’t necessarily agree with you.

Originally Posted by mrmondaynight

Dude followed a kid, didn't tell the kid who he was.. What the hell else you expect to happen?

Remember when you were a child.. And the things your parents told you about creepy strangers? .... Yeah.

You can paint a creepy picture for sure, by viewing the facts selectively, but the evidence still doesn’t support any violation of the law on Zimmerman’s part.

Originally Posted by usamathman

Sounds like the type of guy that would........go around on a "neighborhood watch" with a loaded gug......aggressively approach a random stranger asking a ton of questions.........and shoot the stranger when they refuse to answer to him and attempt to get away because they have no idea who he is.

And again. Evidence doesn’t support anything like the scenario you present here. Sounds like we’re back to what I brought up in post 91: wanting a guy convicted based on the kind of person someone thinks he seems to be.

Takes me back around to what I said in my first post in this thread. To me, the whole idea of ignoring the law and charging or convicting someone based on the whim of public sentiment is really scary. It’s even more frightening when you see how many members of that public have the sentiments they do without knowing the facts of a case and/or without knowing the basics of relevant law.

[mrmondaynight]

Originally Posted by ogre

By “Zimmerman defenders” do you mean all those who feel that GZ should not have been convicted?

Those who feel he was/is a Victim

[ohhwanderlust]

****. Sometimes I wish the Double Jeopardy law didn't exist.

[ogre]

Originally Posted by mrmondaynight

Those who feel he was/is a Victim

Fair enough.

Although in my case I guess I'd have to get into the question of what you mean by "victim." I do think that Zimmerman was a victim of unjust prosecution simply in the legally technical sense that he was improperly--unlawfully really--charged with a crime when there was no evidence against him.

But I'm much more concerned about the larger ramifications, if it should become accepted practice to charge and try people based on public sentiment, than I am in the sense of any serious emotional investment in Zimmerman or great sympathy for him.