Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If the jurors had believed Rachel and not discounted her key testimony because of how she spoke and the expressions she used, they would have had to have found Zimmerman guilty of manslaughter.
Per RJ's own testimony, Trayvon arrived in front of his father's house prior to the confrontation.
Yet the confrontation occurred elsewhere. Indeed, by implication of where the altercation occurred, according to multiple eyewitnesses as well as the location of his body, Trayvon must have left the vicinity of his father's home, and circled back to engage Zimmerman.
And that contradicts the allegation that Trayvon was in fear because he was being 'stalked' by a "creepy ass cracka." Clearly if he had been in real fear, Trayvon would have retreated into his father's home when he first arrived there, because according to RJ, he did actually arrive there.
I think they did believe RJ in a sense that with her own testimony, she impeached both herself and the root of prosecution's fundamental theory.
---
As to the charge of manslaughter, it would have not mattered if a black person also sat on that jury. (Unless you're suggesting they would have tried to throw the verdict.)
That is because according to Florida law, prosecutors must have shown that Zimmerman killed without lawful justification to prove manslaughter. But prosecutors couldn't; even their own witnesses had to acknowledge the wounds on the back of Zimmerman's head, which were consistent with Zimmerman's story of being straddled and throttled into the sidewalk by Trayvon.
---
It sucks that this tragedy occurred. But the jury returned a verdict warranted by Florida law.
The persecution was in a bind. There was nothing to use against gz to play up he racially profiled The Child. They'd have opened the door to the FBI report that found nothing.
You might think an old Facebook or Myspace rant against Mexicans or hearsay from an anonymous relative is really, Really, important. It isn't.
Playing up the race angle on the dispatch call ? 'He looks black' in response to the dispatcher's question won't work. Then O'Mara would have made bigger fools of Bernie & Co. by showing the distance gz was from the suspicious guy and the darkness when he 1st made the call.
The desire to make this a racial profiling case is stronger than breathing and hunger for some of you.
If only Corey had a black prosecutor who Wanted to win to work the case....
Then why are Trayvon's social media postings and e-mails so important to some people? Why did even the defense try to bring Trayvon's text messages and postings into evidence in the trial? Was Zimmerman's phone every screened for evidence? (I'll bet it wasn't.)
A great article by Charles Blow in the NYTimes about how the legal system failed Trayvon Martin.
"The system began to fail Martin long before that night.
The system failed him when Florida’s self-defense laws were written, allowing an aggressor to claim self-defense in the middle of an altercation — and to use deadly force in that defense — with no culpability for his role in the events that led to that point.
Trayvon Martin wasn't officially on trial, but in reality he was, both in the court and in the court of public opinion. For example, it was very telling when Anderson Cooper asked B37 if Trayvon was responsible for his own death, and she answered emphatically, "Trayvon was very much responsible" or something to that effect. The majority of posts on here are about Trayvon's background, and elements of his past that are supposed to show he was a "thug." Yet when posters like myself respond that Zimmerman had a history of assault, domestic violence, and now, homicide---that is dismissed out of hand as meaningless.
It's true, the juror's weren't Trayvon's peers, and the jury was not selected on that basis. But in this case the victim was black, and as I just stated a few posts above, a black juror would probably not have been as alienated by Rachel Jeantel and would have seen her key testimony as more credible. They might have been able to conceive that Trayvon may well have been afraid, not "angry" as Juror B37 pictured him.
Yeah, it would've been great if Charles Barkley would've been that 6th juror.
Looks like someone missed the trial. The whole thing.
Psssssssstttttttt: George was found not guilty.
As far as who's responsible:
1. Trayvon, first and foremost. He thought he'd show that cracka a thing or two. FAIL!
2. His parents for not bringing him up better and bucking him back and forth between homes and then leaving him alone to fend for himself. They should have been parenting.
Per RJ's own testimony, Trayvon arrived in front of his father's house prior to the confrontation.
Yet the confrontation occurred elsewhere. Indeed, by implication of where the altercation occurred, according to multiple eyewitnesses as well as the location of his body, Trayvon must have left the vicinity of his father's home, and circled back to engage Zimmerman.
And that contradicts the allegation that Trayvon was in fear because he was being 'stalked' by a "creepy ass cracka." Clearly if he had been in real fear, Trayvon would have retreated into his father's home when he first arrived there, because according to RJ, he did actually arrive there.
I think they did believe RJ in a sense that with her own testimony, she impeached both herself and the prosecution's contention.
---
As to the charge of manslaughter, it would have not mattered if a black person also sat on that jury. (Unless you're suggesting they would have tried to throw the verdict.)
In Florida prosecutors must have shown that Zimmerman killed without lawful justification. But they couldn't; even their own witnesses had to acknowledge the wounds on the back of Zimmerman's head, which were consistent with Zimmerman's story of being straddled and throttled into the sidewalk by Trayvon.
---
It sucks that this tragedy occurred. But the jury returned a verdict warranted by Florida law.
We simply don't know that. We don't know that Travyon circled back; Rachel's testimony indicates that was not the case. Besides, who sets out to confront someone while on the phone with earbuds on?
We don't know if Zimmerman didn't in fact follow Trayvon south down the alley-way. There was also evidence supporting that scenario.
If you take into account all of George's actions leading up to the killing of Travyon, then to me, it is indeed grounds for a manslaughter conviction, as defined by law, especially if you believe that Zimmerman using deadly force to defend himself in a fistfight was unwarranted.
Trayvon Martin wasn't officially on trial, but in reality he was, both in the court and in the court of public opinion. For example, it was very telling when Anderson Cooper asked B37 if Trayvon was responsible for his own death, and she answered emphatically, "Trayvon was very much responsible" or something to that effect. The majority of posts on here are about Trayvon's background, and elements of his past that are supposed to show he was a "thug." Yet when posters like myself respond that Zimmerman had a history of assault, domestic violence, and now, homicide---that is dismissed out of hand as meaningless.
It's true, the juror's weren't Trayvon's peers, and the jury was not selected on that basis. But in this case the victim was black, and as I just stated a few posts above, a black juror would probably not have been as alienated by Rachel Jeantel and would have seen her key testimony as more credible. They might have been able to conceive that Trayvon may well have been afraid, not "angry" as Juror B37 pictured him.
Your first paragraph - discussing public opinion of Trayvon Martin - is sadly accurate. That is why Harrier was not involved much in the Zimmerman threads before or during the trial. He popped in once in a while to say "let's wait until all the fact come out". He didn't want to contribute to the climate of uninformed speculation and caricaturzation.
The jurors rendered their verdict based on the evidence and the law. Zimmerman and Martin's backgrounds were irrelevant. The issue was whether or nor George Zimmerman acted in self defense - and the jury said "Yes, he did".
As for your second paragraph, Harrier once again directs you towards that quote from the Montgomery County Court -
Quote:
The concept of a jury
of your “peers” has never meant people that are exactly like you, but rather jurors representing
a cross-section of your community that have the same rights and privileges as you – people of
Skin color has nothing to do with it - a jury of ones peers is a jury consisting of a representation of all people in a community, whom are created equal, and are equal under the law.
It is very condescending and rather offensive for you to assume that a black juror would see testimony any differently - just because they are black.
Last edited by Harrier; 07-19-2013 at 05:14 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
