Skip to main content

View Diary: The Zimmerman Case: My take (Like it or not) (159 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  And there is reasonable doubt (5+ / 0-)

    in the case right there.

    •  If we went with that definition of reasonable dbt (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lordcopper, jplanner, brooklyn137

      Noone would ever be acquitted. At least three of the jurors acquited Zimmerman because they believed him. And that's what it comes down to. If they didn't believe his story, they would have convicted. The prosecution failed to shoot down his story.

      •  Sorry, noone would ever be CONVICTED (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lordcopper, Kevskos
        •  I disagree because the prosecution did such a bad (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          inclusiveheart, edg

          job presenting even the evidence we lay people know, and
          refuting defense points that were exaggerations or lies.

          They let so much pass. I don't think any jury would have convicted of Murder 2 beyond a reasonable doubt--because you cant crawl into someone's head and see their intent. But I do think manslaughter should have been on the table and might have been if the prosecution had done a better job.

          The only theory of the crime presented in the trial was GZ story of what happened. Since TM is dead, he can't tell his story. We rely on the prosecution in this kind of case to do that because without that the jury only has one tied togeather way of looking at things. The defense, in the closing arguments, was right in saying that the prosecution said "maybe this, maybe that'. If they did that it there must be reasonable doubt.

          They did do that. Because they did a bad job. It wasn't necessary.

      •  I disagree. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jplanner, ranger995

        If the attorneys on both sides are competent, that is not a high hurdle.  I have seen it argued many times, and have also seen many cases where the evidence was crystal clear.

        None of that was true in the Zimmerman case.

        I am not religious, and did NOT say I enjoyed sects.

        by trumpeter on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 03:30:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  But in some ways it is (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          historys mysteries, edg

          The facts of the case are evidence enough. Zimmerman shot an unarmed 17 year old after getting out of his car, despite having been advised (I said advised not ordered so don't pull the legally binding stuff on me) not to and trained not to in his role as neighborhood watch coordinator. To claim self defense, for me, everything else in his story (backed up by evidence) has to outweigh those facts. The evidence is not clear whether Zimmerman is telling the truth about his story, except on a couple of key points - a fight happened, Zimmerman was on bottom when he fired, Trayvon never touched his gun, his only wounds were superficial given the circumstances. Sorry, not enough for me. At least three of the jurors acquitted because they believe that Trayvon started the fight and was looking to kill Zimmerman in retaliation for being followed. The other three acquitted because the prosecution did not make clear to them what the grounds for conviction were under the law.

          I believe there was enough to convict. At minimum, there were three people on that jury who wanted to charge him with something, knowing all the details. It was a 50-50 split, as it's been from the beginning.

          •  That does not (0+ / 0-)

            answer my comment, and assumes facts not in evidence.

            You did not answer on reasonable doubt.  You claimed there was a fight.  You claimed he was trained.  You claim Zimmerman was on the bottom.

            None of that matches the evidence.

            And it has nothing to do with my experience of reasonable doubt in the courtroom.

            I am not religious, and did NOT say I enjoyed sects.

            by trumpeter on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 04:02:09 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm saying it doesn't matter (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              that the fundamental facts - ie, he shot an unarmed 17 year old are not outweighed by anything presented in the evidence of what happened.  In light of everything else presented, those fundamental facts alone are enough for me to believe it was not self defense, beyond a reasonable doubt.

              •  And that (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                is what the prosecutor should have argued.

                Ergo, 'reasonable doubt' would have worked.

                I am not religious, and did NOT say I enjoyed sects.

                by trumpeter on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 04:12:14 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  The prosecution did a BAD job. (3+ / 0-)

                They did not humanize Trayvon Martin.

                They did no prepare the witness who was on the phone with him prior to putting her on the witness stand.

                They did not put on a case that illustrated what Martin as the victim would have gone through.

                They did not point out that history is always written by the victors when no one makes a effort to investigate that of the losers.

                They did not nullify Zimmerman's claims of fear by imparting to the jury that surely this young kid was also fearful of his life.

                They did not poke holes in obvious defense tactics.

                The prosecution also did not convey, conjure or raise any understanding what so ever of what it is like to be not only a young kid naively walking along "slowly" when someone is following him, but also what that might mean if that kid was also black in a predominantly white neighborhood.

                Personally, I think that the prosecutors in this case were half-hearted at best in their engagement in the trial.  I do not believe that they really cared about winning this case.

                OR they are fairly typical of most prosecutors in this country who are so used to winning on nothing and not having to do their jobs of proving guilt, that they totally fucked this high-profile case.

                I believe it was on some level a convergence of both a lazy sense of entitlement in the win category and also not a lot of empathy or understanding of the victim they were assigned to represent on behalf of the people.

                •  Agreed on all counts. (0+ / 0-)

                  However, had they tried humanizing Martin, that likely would have opened the door to the 'he was a drug dealer/gun runner' smear, or Omara would have challenged because it doesn't directly relate to the immediate events.

                  •  I remember watching his friend testifying (4+ / 0-)

                    about her conversation with him just before and while he was attacked.

                    She talked about how he was trying to get home to watch some sporting event.  I would have HAMMERED that home with the jury.

                    "Normal young boy interested in sports".

                    "Normal teen talking on the phone distracted".

                    "Normal kid irritated that he's missing part of a game because he's had to go out to the convenience store".

                    There were a lot of opportunities to illustrate this kid even just during that one interview, but the prosecution did not even try.

                    I've seen prosecutors talk about dead victims in the past in ways that are not believable - where their statements about victims who are dead are barely believable, but they do it and they often win.  This prosecution team sucked.  They were timid.  They were mild-mannered.  And they asked the jury for too much.  Had they asked for manslaughter and designed their case to deliver that verdict, they probably could have won.  But they were looking for notches in their belts and didn't do the work to actually get those notches.

                    I am one of a small percentage of people in this country who views a wrongly convicted - or over-prosecuted - defendant as an affront to not only criminal justice, but also as a very serious risk to public safety.  This case, in my opinion, is a perfect intersection of the worst of the prosecution "norms" and the worst of criminal justice.

                    I actually support the jury's decision not because I think that they are correct or even remotely right, but because the prosecution was so arrogant, lazy, entitled, slimy and poor.

          •  I am not sure it is clear GZ was on bottom when (4+ / 0-)

            he fired.

            The prosecution ACTED AS IF that were stipulated. I heard experts on TV wonder why that was. As I did.

            That gun was behind GZ right hip, underneath him. With 300+ lbs pressing it into the wet grass and ?soft wet ground since it had been raining.

            Though the lame prosecution !! Let It Pass the defense gesture showing the gun in FRONT of the right hip (I noticed the non verbal lie, they did not), they did address TM legs being in the way.

            But they missed emphasizing that the gun was under both men behind GZ pressed into the ground as it is.

            I can't see how he could have taken out that gun. I especially can't see how TM could have SEEN the gun in the dark and rain even if his jacket had ridden up.

            GZ made a mistake, at the very least, saying TM was going for his gun and he'd seen it. No way TM saw it. GZ said he had to shoot TM because TM was going for his gun.

            SO then, at the least, GZ mistake right there cost TM his life.

            Manslaughter Manslaughter Manslaughter.

            •  I just don't think it matters. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Tonedevil, trumpeter

              The only possible reason I can see for Zimmerman to commit justifiable homicide is if Martin really was going for his gun and I see nothing in the evidence to support that.

              •  To clarify what you said: (0+ / 0-)

                If Martin was going for Zimmerman's gun to use it against him. It wouldn't be justifiable if Martin was just trying to disarm Zimmerman.

                A waist is a terrible thing to mind.

                by edg on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 09:38:59 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  It's one of the 3 canned excuses. (0+ / 0-)

              Cops usually use one of 3 excuses for shooting unarmed people:

              1. He was reaching for my gun.
              2. I thought he was reaching for a gun.
              3. (Person in car) He was trying to run me down.

              A waist is a terrible thing to mind.

              by edg on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 09:37:49 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site