General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsOne last thread before I bow out of World War Z
REASONABLE DOUBT
I think Zimmerman's a coward, a sketchball, and an asshole who really fucked up and killed a kid. His narrative was full of inconsistencies and he should have gone down for murder II, manslaughter, or negligent homicide.
It was a massive failure on the part of the police department. They just took Zimmerman's story at face value. They didn't test Zimmerman for drugs or alcohol. Evidence was contaminated and destroyed and weeks went by before they talked to crucial witnesses. They didn't take the shooting death of this black kid seriously at all, and the DOJ should investigate them for evidence of racism in the handling of this case.
*HOWEVER*
The prosecution's case was terrible. The lead witness came off as a flake, they couldn't identify who was screaming on the 911 call, and they acknowledged that Martin was on top of Zimmerman when he was shot, among other problems. The only evidence that they presented that it was a fair fight and not a beatdown was eyewitness testimony, which is notoriously unreliable. They failed to present a version of events that explained all the evidence in a cohesive way.
The defense, meanwhile, did present a cohesive narrative. They eviscerated the key witness for the prosecution, and packaged the forensic testimony together in a way that fit Zimmerman's account to the police.
The job of the prosecution was to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman wasn't acting in self defense. The defense's job was to leave the door open for an alternative narrative in which Zimmerman was afraid for his life at the moment he pulled the trigger.
Did the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was acting in anything other than self defense? ABSOLUTELY NOT.
I think it's entirely possible that Zimmerman was getting his ass kicked and was afraid for his life when he pulled that trigger. Zimmerman's a coward and he probably took a few lumps and freaked out. Based on the testimony given in the trial, I think it's likely that Zimmerman was the one who was screaming on the 911 tape. Rachel Jeantel's letter to Mrs. Fulton, her testimony, and her statements after the trial paint a portrait of a kid who was not afraid of a fight. If this is how it went down, it doesn't make Trayvon a bad person or the villain in the situation, it makes him a normal kid. (IMHO, pretending that Trayvon was too good for this sinful earth is just another racist trope, and seeing him as a human being means seeing him in all his complexity: he was looking at colleges, he sent raunchy tweets, he bought candy for his dad's fiance's son, he smoked weed, and he did nothing wrong and did not deserve to die that night.)
I'm disappointed in the verdict, but I don't see how the jury could have found anything different considering the fact that the prosecution's case had giant holes in it. And again, it's not the job of the defense to PROVE anything, just demonstrate that the prosecution's case is flawed.
I'm also disappointed in DU for being so willing to throw away such concepts as "innocent until proven guilty," "burden of proof," "self defense," and "beyond reasonable doubt," just because we "know" that Zimmerman was a racist fucker who set out to kill an innocent black kid.
These legal concepts protect (or should protect) everyone, black and white, male and female. If anything, I think juries don't use these concepts enough and innocent people are victimized by a racist justice system that doesn't give black people any benefit of the doubt, either in life or death.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)quinnox
(20,600 posts)I have had it with his defenders and apologists around here.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Skittles
(153,164 posts)they make me SICK
Tunkamerica
(4,444 posts)he/she's analyzing a case that has been decided. in fact he/she makes a point of saying the jury fucked up, and that zimmerman wasn't justified in the killing.
being simplistic for a thumbs up from other knee-jerk reactionaries is a poor way to foster relevant conversation. disgraceful. dialogue is now the only positive thing that can come from this trial and you're just making the negativity worse.
mythology
(9,527 posts)There are a lot of people who rush to be the most ardent, the most angry and lose sight of the fact that they are in a mob because they are so convinced that they are right, that they can't imagine anybody who doesn't see things the exact same way.
Hekate
(90,708 posts)Good luck waiting for all the evidence. Good luck trying to see as much of it as you can before forming a final opinion.
I'm not having such good luck with that at the moment, but c'est la vie.
By the way, I agree with you on nearly everything you wrote.
onpatrol98
(1,989 posts)Quote: "I'm also disappointed in DU for being so willing to throw away such concepts as "innocent until proven guilty," "burden of proof," "self defense," and "beyond reasonable doubt," just because we "know" that Zimmerman was a racist fucker who set out to kill an innocent black kid."
------------------------
Disappointed???
Whatever...
I'm "disappointed" that I burned a roast once. I expected two packages last week, and only received one. I'm quite disappointed about that.
I'm angry as hell about this verdict.
-------------------------
And any politician that attempts to sell me his or her disappointment about the verdict, and the inability of anyone to convict under these circumstances will not only NOT get my vote. But, I will make it my business to let EVERYONE I know about their reaction, from the place that does my hair, my church (after the morning service, of course...), and my gazillion relatives and friends. AND, I encourage everyone I know to do the same.
Until they begin to value the children in my neighborhood, I don't give a rat's behind about whatever they're pushing as the need they have for my vote. From educational malpractice to murder...the average politician has betrayed our neighborhoods either through lack of funds or simply turning their backs. I plan on doing the same.
Pelican
(1,156 posts)DevonRex
(22,541 posts)In fact, it was barely presented at all. I don't see how that prosecutor won 83/85 murder trials if that's how he does his job. I could have presented it myself and won. Yes, won. On the very same evidence.
Perhaps not with that jury. Which makes me wonder where the fuck the prosecutor was during jury selection. Which makes me wonder all sorts of other things...
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)the prosecution was handled by the higher ups and not the people on the ground who could have won it.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)are that stupid they don't known when they have a champion in their corner in Corey. Sure, she had Trayvon prosecuted. But made sure it wouldn't succeed. I believe the shenanigans extend to much more than the race issue, though. There is just too much that makes no sense, like a very good, veteran prosecutor looking like he'd never tried a case before. I could go on and on, but I won't because you're an attorney an I know you noticed every little thing I did. Mostly, the complete lack of a scenario that made more sense than Zimmerman's that fit the evidence better. And just being coherent and cohesive, succinct and declarative to the jury.
Somehow, though, they gave the appearance of prosecuting Zimmerman. Even though they did not. I have neither seen, nor heard of, a case in which the prosecution did not present at least a theory of the way a crime was committed. One that puts the evidence together in a nice neat package so the jury understands how to get from A to Z.
And LOL, Corey fired the guy who leaked about the prosecution withholding evidence. Now the RW thinks she's a Trojan Horse. I'm LMAO. She's as Republican as they come. Her record is horrendous. It kind of reminds me, sadly, of a little situation we've been experiencing on the Democratic side.
Nay
(12,051 posts)pitiful, and very suspicious that this prosecutor's effort was so poor. It could actually lead me to wonder if he threw the fight.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Last edited Mon Jul 22, 2013, 02:57 PM - Edit history (1)
mbulance alert! Whining about DU in GD is such low class. Obvious trolls do it, you should hold yourself to a higher standard.
EDIT - and it looks like a jury agreed with me, so sorry alerter...obvious trolling is obvious to most DUers. Maybe next time right!
mwrguy
(3,245 posts)one way or another.
hunter
(38,316 posts)... suicide by cop after a domestic violence call (I feel sorry for the cop.)
-or-
Jeffrey Dahmer in prison
-or-
Dead drunk driver wrapped around a telephone pole
-or-
something similar.
Even if he lives to be an old man, Zimmerman's life ended when he pulled the trigger.
The devil owns him and it's not likely he'll escape the hell he embraced.
He can smile, he can be a "stand your ground" hero, but he's still a small fearful man with a broken soul.
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)above all else is that you felt compelled to ruthlessly attack Rachel Jentel, a private citizen from a disadvantaged background who sought only to live her own life. After that, I don't know what you think gives you the moral authority to pass judgment on anyone else.
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)pintobean
(18,101 posts)to pass judgement on every gun owner and 2nd amendment supporter.
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)and the vast majority of the Democratic party. If you're looking to have your views on guns validated, you're in the wrong place.
But by all means, keep crying that right-wing views on guns aren't respected by progressives. Gunners love nothing more than to play the victim while tens of thousands of people die from the guns they worship. Poor you, someone doesn't love your fucking guns. Boo hooo. Trayvon Martin is dead, hundreds of children have been shot since Sandyhook, but as usual all that matters is gun owners incapable of thinking about anyone but themselves. How dare anyone think human life matters more than your guns?
pintobean
(18,101 posts)Show me.
Every poll I've ever seen on this site shows that a majority of DUers support the second amendment.
This is the minority position, on DU, and in the party.
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)think your guns are more important than human life or the lives of people like Trayvon Martin. You continually conflate gun owners with gun evangelists. From what I can tell, the majority of gun owners on this site want nothing to do with the gun nuts that worship the Koch brothers and ALEC, who pushed the SYG laws, over the Democratic Party.
You didn't ask about the Second Amendment. You whined about how I didn't respect the gun nut obsession with guns above all else. Really I have to wonder why you care what I think? I myself could care less what you think. I don't feel the need for appoval from strangers to get through the day. If you want to surround yourself with people who care not one bit for the lives or the nation's children and fellow citizens but believe the only rights that matter are those of paranoid gun nuts like Zimmerman to unload their weapon on innocent black teenagers, I'm sure you can find them. All you need do is ignore unpleasant people like me who actually think human life is more important. If the majority of DUers agree with you, it shouldn't be hard to ignore those like me. Or is it possible you just can't resist an opportunity to engage in self pity? If you are indeed in the majority, it begs the question of why so many here express concern about Trayvon Martin and his family, while some gun nuts, in typical fashion, focus only on themselves. You'll need to straighten out this majority so they post only about you and your fellow gun evangelists and stop worrying about trivial things like innocent murder victims.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)until you made that ridiculous 85% claim - which you didn't even attempt to back up. I also didn't whine about anything; I just pointed out the hypocrisy of your "moral authority" comment.
As usual, you made something up, and when you were called on it, you attack a person's character based on more made-up crap.
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)You whined about how I "passed judgment" on gun owners, which isn't the case. I have gun owners in my family. What I don't respect is the views of those who think their guns are more important than everything else, including human life. I could care less if you don't like that. It is more important for me to do what is right than what you like. You bring in on yourself by pestering me. I don't run around after you telling you what I think. The only time I'm aware of your existence is when you reply to one of my posts to express outrage that I have the audacity to hold views you don't like.
This is a thread about the Zimmerman case and Trayvon Martin, yet you are compelled to make it about yourself. I've had my fill of boredom for the week.
Spazito
(50,349 posts)the multiple posts, the despicable poll tell me all I need to know about how much credence to give this OP.
Ghost of Tom Joad
(1,355 posts)WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)I don't think this thread was meant to spawn debate and honest discussion. Jus sayin.
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)Or someone alerted on you?
Rex
(65,616 posts)Yes I was DUmailed the results. Maybe I hit a nerve? No it was a 5-1 vote to leave.
I just calls them like I sees them, if I am wrong then I will gladly take my hidden post.
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)Because she's black and comes from a disadvantaged background, it's totally fine that she's illiterate and sits there in court rolling her eyes and acting like she'd rather be anywhere else at all, instead of acting interested in bringing her friend's killer to justice?
I come from a disadvantaged background and I was involved in a court case when I was 16, and everyone involved told me to show up looking respectable, act like I was interested in what was going on, be polite, and don't give anyone any reason to doubt my character. The trenchcoat, the Nine Inch Nails shirt, and the Doc Martins stayed home.
Making excuses for her because she's black is as racist as profiling Trayvon in the first place.
Whether she wanted to be or not, she was there attesting to Trayvon's character, and she failed badly.
She was the star witness, and she totally sunk the case.
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)You haven't lived her life. Leave her alone already. It's really unpleasant. I don't need to make excuses for her. She has nothing to do with my life or yours. She is not a public figure.
Blaming her for the case's failure is absurd. The Prosecution had a responsibility to prepare their witnesses. All kinds of trials depend on witnesses who are criminals, killers, and worse. I don't know what it is that prompts you to be so cruel about a private citizen. It's unfathomable to me.
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)He's a murderer.
I don't buy the 'reasonable doubt' bullshit. Unless you have video of a killing actually taking place, nearly every murder could be considered reasonable doubt by a competent defense. It's no excuse, especially when it's so subjective.
What I do know is that Zimmerman was allowed to tell his story. We never heard Martin's. Martin's story died with him.
That's truly the most unfortunate thing about this whole ordeal. Forget, for a second, Zimmerman receiving 'justice' - when does Martin receive his?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Let our legal system protect those who deserve it.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)Which is contained in this sentence:
Did the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was acting in anything other than self defense? ABSOLUTELY NOT.
It is the prosecution's burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman committed the act, which they did without question as the defense conceded that he shot Mr. Martin.
When the defense mounts an affirmative defense, i.e. "I shot him but I had a good reason" then the burden of proof shifts dramatically and it is no longer the prosecution's responsibility as described in boiler plate wiki article
Burden of proof[edit]
Affirmative defenses' burden of proof is on the defendant to prove its allegations either by the preponderance of the evidence or clear and convincing evidence, as opposed to ordinary defenses (claim of right, alibi, infancy, necessity, and (in some jurisdictions, e.g., New York) self-defense (which is an affirmative defense at common law)), for which the prosecutor has the burden of disproving beyond a reasonable doubt.
Now exactly how that burden is split defers from state to state. As I understand it the defense had to prove that Zimmerman had a reasonable fear of death. In this case it gets complicated because we have Mr. Martin's real, and very well founded fear of getting killed which in fact did happen. Zimmerman started a string of actions knowing that he had a gun. I think it is very reasonable for the jury to not accept the defenses' argument that Zimmerman had a real fear because he could have done any of the following:
a) not gotten out of his car
b) not pursued Mr. Martin
c) retreated from Mr. Martin
d) showed his weapon and not shot Mr. Martin.
So your premise on the burden of proof being wrong then your analysis is also faulty and your outrage completely misplaced.
There is every reason to believe that the case of the prosecution met the burden of proof that Zimmerman committed the act and that the various statements of Zimmerman could have been found to be completely self serving and not believable (i.e. he was looking for a street sign in a 3 street complex he was familiar with and walked away from the street to where no sign could possibly be).
I think you should reassess your position based on the fact that the defense had the burden in an affirmative defense and there is reasonable questions as to whether or not they met that burden.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)In FL, like most states, when self defense is claimed the prosecution must prove otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt to convict.
The only exception I am aware of is Ohio.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)The defense has to establish that Zimmerman's actions were in self defense. Since Zimmerman did not take the stand the only evidence directly related to it were his various statements not taken under oath that were both self serving and in some cases strained credulity.
As to burden of proof I googled a single state IL and found this reference:
Thus, the state has the burden of showing beyond reasonable doubt (BRD) that (i) the elements of first degree murder are present, and (ii) that defendant's use of deadly force was not supportable by an objectively reasonable fear of serious bodily harm. If the state fails to do (ii), the defendant cannot be convicted of either first or second degree murder.
If the state succeeds in showing (ii) when self-defense has been raised, the defendant may then negate first degree murder (but not second-degree murder) by showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he a subjectively genuine (but not objectively reasonable) fear of serious bodily harm (this is also known as "imperfect self-defense" .
The defendant has the burden of production as to self-defense. That is, the prosecution does not need to negate it if it is not raised and supported by an appropriate quantum of evidence. What is that quantum? Well, it must be enough that, standing alone and before any rebuttal, raises at least a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not lawfully permitted to use deadly force in self-defense.
This evidentiary basis could be the defendant's testimony or other evidence. If the prosecution enters into evidence the video recording of the claimant's Mirandized police interrogation, and that video shows the defendant alleging self-defense, that could raise reasonable doubt without requiring the defendant to take the stand. If the prosecution only enters part of the recording, omitting the parts about self-defense, the defense may have it entered under F.R.E. 106 (or its state court analogue) ("If a party introduces all or part of a writing or recorded statement, an adverse party may require the introduction, at that time, of any other part or any other writing or recorded statement that in fairness ought to be considered at the same time" , without requiring the defendant to take the stand.
But even in a state with a low bar for self defense the defense still needs to assert that it was self defense and in this case there is a reasonable conclusion that Mr. Martin was the one acting in self defense and Zimmerman was the aggressor and made a fatal shot when he lost his advantage.
In any case I am not saying that the jury was in error but taking exception to the absolutist tone of the OP which is based on a misperception of the prosecutions' burden and comes to a conclusion that
Did the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was acting in anything other than self defense? ABSOLUTELY NOT.
Was Zimmerman acting in self defense when he got out of the car?
And in each step he took towards Zimmerman was he acting in self defense?
The OP presents the case like it was an open and shut case for not guilty, which of course it was not.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)And Googling IL when discussing a case in FL is not helping your case.
Here is a good page that discusses the relevant FL law.
http://www.ohioverticals.com/blogs/akron_law_cafe/2012/04/zimmermans-low-burden-of-proof-on-the-issue-of-self-defense/
These are the FL jury instructions regarding self defense:
If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find the defendant not guilty. However, if from the evidence you are convinced that the defendant was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved.
Reasonable doubt favors the defendant in claims of self defense, therefore the prosecution must prove it was not self defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)Boom Sound 416
(4,185 posts)brush
(53,784 posts)to do their racist duty in a racist county should have seen through zimmerman's huge lies, especially the alleged 20-30 head bashes on concrete that he just walked away from).
I keep posting these links but you never acknowledge that you went to them:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023254619
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3306770
The jury saw their duty and they did it, especially B37, she had a book deal to cash in on so she wanted out of that jury room quick.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)times.
THE REST OF US GET TO EXPRESS ANY DAMN OPINIONS WE WANT. SO TOO BAD YOU'RE "DISAPPOINTED" IN THAT FIRST AMENDMENT THANG.