News Is Canada a Safer Alternative After Zimmerman Verdict?

[russ_watters]

I'll get back to some earlier statements, but right now I'm watching an AC360 interview with a juror. Some excerpts:

-AC:"Did you think the prosecution really had a firm idea of what actually happened?
"I think they wanted to happen what they wanted to happen...[but]there was no doubt that they [the witnesses] had seen what had happened."

-Juror was sure it was Zimmerman on tape because he was the one being beaten. As were four of the other five other jurors. The fifth wasn't sure.

-The juror said none of the jury thought race played a role.

-Juror believed Zimmerman's "heart was in the right place", but he used poor judgement.

-"George had a right to protect himself." "I really do" (think Zimmerman thought his life was in danger.

-Juror believes Martin threw the first punch.

-"I think the rules changed." (when Zimmerman got too close and Martin attacked him)

Like I said yesterday

Zimmerman got off because of reasonable doubt, it's legal.

From what the juror said, and consistent with my perception of the trial, it sounds more like Zimmerman got off because the jury actually believed him not to be guilty. The juror seemed to believe pretty strongly that it was self defense. And self defense is actually an affirmative defense: it has a burden of proof that is on the defense instead of the prosecution.

 

[lugita15]

He was told not to follow Trayvon. It's also against the Neighborhood Watch Rules.

At least according to Zimmerman's version of events, he didn't follow Trayvon after being told not to. Zimmerman claims that he was walking to check the street name, so that he could tell the cops exactly where he had seen Trayvon. Whether that's believable is a different story.

As far as Neighboorhood Watch rules go, he wasn't on duty at the time of the incident. He was just going to the store, although he was carrying a gun.

 

[WannabeNewton]

EDIT TO ADD: I was doing some random web searching and found this
http://www.tampabay.com/news/public...s-some-shocking-outcomes-depending-on/1233133

which describes how the law is being abused in ways that are far more obvious than the Zimmerman case might be

Lol. I don't know whether to laugh or be scared. 'Murrica

 

[lugita15]

And self defense is actually an affirmative defense: it has a burden of proof that is on the defense instead of the prosecution.

I don't think it's an affirmative defense, at least in this case; the http://www.wesh.com/news/central-florida/trayvon-martin-extended-coverage/read-the-george-zimmerman-trial-jury-instructions/-/14266478/20950196/-/gio1u8/-/index.html say "If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find George Zimmerman not guilty." So the prosecution still needs to remove the reasonable doubt that he was justified in the use of deadly force.

 

[Evo]

Russ, I'm just going by what the ABC news analyst said, he said that just because they found him not guilty doesn't mean they found him innocent, it just means that the prosecution failed to convince them "beyond a reasonable doubt". I heard on the news yesterday that the jury has requested that their identities be kept secret, they don't want anyone to know who they are.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't think it's an affirmative defense, at least in this case; the http://www.wesh.com/news/central-florida/trayvon-martin-extended-coverage/read-the-george-zimmerman-trial-jury-instructions/-/14266478/20950196/-/gio1u8/-/index.html say "If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find George Zimmerman not guilty." So the prosecution still needs to remove the reasonable doubt that he was justified in the use of deadly force.

Oy, that's badly worded; they didn't say in which direction the reasonable doubt was! Is that really what they told the jury?

My interpretation of that is that if they have a reasonable doubt that it was self defense (ie, they are only 75% sure and not 90% sure it was self defense), then they should find not guilty. That still sounds affirmative - just not necessarily the same standard of proof.

Continuing about the juror:
For the initial vote, it was 3 not guilty, 1 2nd degree murder, 2 manslaughter. She said they found the law/legal issues to be confusing. Like they had a lot thrown at them and the definitions weren't all that well explained. For example, one juror questioned how far back self defense goes. Meaning that is self defense decided in the moment of the shooting or do Zimmermans actions and Martin's actions a few seconds or minutes before get taken into account.

-"There was a couple of them (other jurors) in there that wanted to find him guilty of something. And after hours and hours and hours of deliberating over the law and reading it over and over and over again, we decided that there was just no other place to go."

-(Paraphrase) The jury recognized that none of the events leading up to the physical confrontation were relevant, so it had to be self defense because at the time of the shooting, Zimmerman feared for his life.

-She said it didn't make sense that the case became so big because the jury didn't see that race had anything to do with it.

 

[russ_watters]

Russ, I'm just going by what the ABC news analyst said, he said that just because they found him not guilty doesn't mean they found him innocent, it just means that the prosecution failed to convince them "beyond a reasonable doubt".

There are always two possibilities as to why you might find someone not guilty:
1. You aren't convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that they are guilty.
2. You are convinced that they are not guilty.

2 is of course a subset of 1 and the way you worded it covers both. Until you talk to a juror, you can't know if the answer is 2 though, so don't read into it something that isn't there.

I heard on the news yesterday that the jury has requested that their identities be kept secret, they don't want anyone to know who they are.

A very smart thing to do. They've already started receiving (apparently un-ironic) death threats:
http://www.examiner.com/article/twitter-lynch-mob-targets-zimmerman-jury-with-death-threats?cid=rss

 

[lugita15]

Oy, that's badly worded; they didn't say in which direction the reasonable doubt was! Is that really what they told the jury?

My interpretation of that is that if they have a reasonable doubt that it was self defense (ie, they are only 75% sure and not 90% sure it was self defense), then they should find not guilty. That still sounds affirmative - just not necessarily the same standard of proof.

But what if they found, say, that there was only a 25% chance that it was self-defense? Then there is reasonable doubt in both directions, so whether "reasonable doubt" means "reasonable doubt in favor" or "reasonable doubt against", doesn't that mean that they would have to find him not guilty?

 

[lugita15]

Attached is the portion of the jury instructions dealing with self-defense, so you have some context.
EDIT: Wow, it looks like I missed the very next sentence: "However, if from the evidence you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that George Zimmerman was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find him guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved." So it's just the usual burden of proof for the prosecution.

 

[lurflurf]

I don't think there is any precise cutoff for reasonable. In most cases one would not be able to assign a numerical chance. A 25% chance is certainly reasonable. A 1% chance might even be reasonable, but would result in few convictions. Consider the reverse with about 2 000 000 persons incarcerated in the US
0.01% innocent is 200
.1% innocent is 2 000
1% innocent is 20 000
5% innocent is 100 000
10% innocent is 200 000
We potentially have a whole city full of innocent people incarcerated

http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4389&context=expresso
http://www.skepticaljuror.com/2011/01/proof-beyond-kind-of-reasonable-doubt.html

 

[russ_watters]

I fail to see how there is no relation between the stand-your-ground law, and this case.

You yourself recall the information that Trayvon Martin was claimed to be on top of George Zimmerman, beating him, at the time when George Zimmerman shot him. The relation between the stand-your-ground law and this scenario is incredibly overwhelming.

I don't think you understand what "stand your ground" is about. "Stand your ground" says you don't have to try to escape when challenged. Since Zimmerman was on the ground, being beaten, when he shot Martin, it didn't apply. So while his defense had the opportunity to request a hearing on Stand Your Ground basis, they chose not to because they recognized it wasn't relevant:

Self-defense laws in the United States, particularly regarding justifiable homicide, vary by state. Florida law, as of 2005, includes a "stand your ground" provision, under which a person, who reasonably fears death or great bodily harm (the ordinary deadly self-defense requirement) is relieved of the common-law requirement that one first attempt to retreat, if one can safely do so, before using deadly force.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#.22Stand_your_ground.22_laws

 

[russ_watters]

Perhaps Martin, who was unarmed, was defending himself the only way he could.

Here's the most critical problem with the prosecution's case: They had no theory of the crime that fit the evidence.

Initially, the prosecution forwarded the theory that Zimmerman was on top, which I believe they needed in order to avoid a self defense verdict. But that theory fell apart when both forensic evidence and witness testimony corroborated the fact that Zimmerman was on the bottom - so they abandoned it. The forensic evidence in particular was pretty clear:

1. Wounds to the back of Zimmerman's head that indicate he was lying on his back, with his head being slammed into the ground.
2. Wounds on Zimmerman's face indicating that he was being punched in the face.
3. Wounds to Martin's hands from striking Zimmerman.
4. No wounds to Zimmerman's hands or Martin's face to indicate Zimmerman ever landed a punch.
5. Gunshot residue patterns indicating Martin's shirt was away from his body when he was shot: he was leaning forward.

All of that paints a specific picture of what happened: Martin was beating Zimmerman pretty badly when Zimmerman shot him. How exactly they got into the physical fight is not completely clear of course. Perhaps Zimmerman took one swing that didn't land and after that it was all Martin? I don't know, but there isn't any evidence of that which would wipe away the self defense evidence.

 

[Evo]

I don't think you understand what "stand your ground" is about. "Stand your ground" says you don't have to try to escape when challenged. Since Zimmerman was on the ground, being beaten, when he shot Martin, it didn't apply. So while his defense had the opportunity to request a hearing on Stand Your Ground basis, they chose not to because they recognized it wasn't relevant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#.22Stand_your_ground.22_laws

The 911 calls from witnesses say that two men were arguing, then started to wrestle and that one started to scream for help and was shot. Listen to these calls. There is not one person saying that one was beating the other.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/03/what-happened-trayvon-martin-explained

If you look at the pictures of Zimmerman after he was taken in that night, he had a tiny scratch on the bridge of his nose and two very tiny superficial scratches on the back of his head. Did you read the experts testimony on his lack of injuries that I posted?

Zimmerman's injuries could be that he was punched in the nose and fell backwards and hit his head. Zimmerman's injuries were very minimal, not at all representative of a beating.

A medical examiner who looked at the photographs and records of George Zimmerman said the injuries to the neighborhood watch volunteer were insignificant, as the prosecution and defense in the murder trial argued about whether Zimmerman embellished his accounts of his confrontation with an unarmed Trayvon Martin.

Perhaps the biggest contradiction is Zimmerman’s claim that he was repeatedly beaten by Martin. Zimmerman has said his head was struck against the concrete sidewalk by Martin who rained a series of blows — more than two dozen in one account — on the volunteer.

Photographs show that Zimmerman had a bloody nose and two lacerations to the back of his head — wounds that the prosecution has insisted are too minor to have come from a severe attack by Martin.

Dr. Valerie Rao, the Jacksonville, Fla., medical examiner for Duval, Clay and Nassau counties, testified that she reviewed Zimmerman’s photographs and medical records. She was not involved in the autopsy of Martin.

The wounds displayed on Zimmerman’s head and face were “consistent with one strike, two injuries at one time,” she testified. “The injuries were not life-threatening,” she said, adding they were “very insignificant.”

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/...man-medical-examiner-20130702,0,1358679.story

Lets not assume that Zimmerman is telling the truth when live calls to 911 don't corroborate his story.

 

[russ_watters]

Indeed. Let's stick to the facts here. So Physics_UG, I want to hear some reference that backs up your story.[RE: Zimmerman as a racist]

FYI, for all: There is an awful lot of misinformation flying around here that was fomented by a malicious media. But the Wiki on the case lays the facts and malfeasance out pretty well. A number of NBC employees were fired for editing the 911 call to cut out where the 911 operator asked for a description of Martin and splice together different parts where Zimmerman described him as suspicious and black. And the lawsuit is underway: I expect Zimmerman will win.

Between March 19 and 27, 2012, the NBC Nightly News, NBC's Today show, and NBC's network-owned Miami affiliate WTVJ NBC6[365] ran segments which misleadingly merged parts of Zimmerman's call. On one version of the recording played by NBC, Zimmerman was heard saying, "This guy looks like he's up to no good or he's on drugs or something... He's got his hand in his waistband, and he's a black male."[366] In another what was played was, "This guy looks like he's up to no good. He looks black." In the original 9-1-1 recording, Zimmerman said: "This guy looks like he's up to no good. Or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about." The 9-1-1 operator then asked: "OK, and this guy, is he black, white or Hispanic?", and Zimmerman answered, "He looks black."[312] The phrase, "He's got his hand in his waistband, and he's a black male" came several exchanges after that point in the conversation.[367][368]

Erik Wemple of the Washington Post wrote that NBC's alterations "would more readily paint Zimmerman as a racial profiler. In reality... Zimmerman simply answered a question...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#Misleading_audio_editing_by_NBC

The next section of the wiki is about how another network aired a video of Zimmerman and commented on how it didn't look like he had any injuries when you could clearly see that he had two head wounds.

Given all of the media malfeasance, it should not be surprising that even well educated people on PF have such factually wrong understandings of the facts of this case.

 

[KC_Smallz]

You can kill them, but then you are guilty of at least manslaughter.

Nope self defense. That's why he got off they couldn't prove that it wasn't out of self defense. Also I don't think they know who attacked who.

 

[KC_Smallz]

Am I the only one who thinks Martin was a big city hoodlum who jumped the wrong country boy?(duck and cover)

old jim

Nope.

 

[Evo]

Nope.

Then you need to read what I posted above.

 

[KC_Smallz]

Didn't follow this case at all , all I know is the murderer is a middle-aged white guy and the victim a black guy and that everybody thinks the killer should be convicted (I'm unaware if there's enough information available for the public to have an informed opinion , is there?).It seems that the interest of this case is very racial in nature.

I say who cares about their race , just give him a fair trial and let the justice system operate like they always do , for better or for worst.

The new trend in social medias with people regrouping and putting other people on their own amateurish trial is starting to worry me to be honest.

He's half Hispanic.

 

[KC_Smallz]

Then you need to read what I posted above.

Which one?

 

[Evo]

FYI, for all: There is an awful lot of misinformation flying around here that was fomented by a malicious media. But the Wiki on the case lays the facts and malfeasance out pretty well. A number of NBC employees were fired for editing the 911 call to cut out where the 911 operator asked for a description of Martin and splice together different parts where Zimmerman described him as suspicious and black. And the lawsuit is underway: I expect Zimmerman will win.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#Misleading_audio_editing_by_NBC

The next section of the wiki is about how another network aired a video of Zimmerman and commented on how it didn't look like he had any injuries when you could clearly see that he had two head wounds.

Given all of the media malfeasance, it should not be surprising that even well educated people on PF have such factually wrong understandings of the facts of this case.

I posted a link previously with a number of the calls Zimmerman made to the police department about "blacks" in the neighborhood. But this isn't about if he was a racist, it's about him being a self appointed vigilante that didn't follow the rules. Do you deny that if he had followed the rules that nothing would have happened and that kid would still be alive? That's what this is about. He broke the rules and needlessly caused the end of the life of that kid. I hope that Trayvon's family sues Zimmerman for wrongful death, they will surely win. I am so disheartened by the people here that seem to miss the tragedy of what happened because of this person that decided to take the law into his own hands, that they even seem happy about it. Disgusting.

Let me repeat, if he had followed the rules, none of this would have happened.

 

[KC_Smallz]

I posted a link previously with a number of the calls Zimmerman made to the police department about "blacks" in the neighborhood. But this isn't about if he was a racist, it's about him being a self appointed vigilante that didn't follow the rules.

I myself am not racist, but do know that the likely hood of a young black male wearing his hood up in a wealthy neighborhood being up to no good is very high. Not to say that it's because he's black, but you know what I mean. Zimmerman was on neighborhood watch, and there was a shady character in his neighborhood. While he was doing nothing wrong, can you blame him for his suspicion?

 

[russ_watters]

This case should never have gone to trial as second degree murder. Classical prosecutorial excess.

The way you phrased that, I can only half agree: IMO the case should not have gone to trial at all. The problem faced by the prosecution in choosing the charges is that the charges have to fit the theory about what happened. If Zimmerman is a racist who hunted down a black man to kill, that really is 2nd degree murder. But the evidence just doesn't support that and the prosecution's case fell apart due to the clear evidence that Zimmerman was on the bottom, so they threw-in involuntary manslaughter at the end as an additional possibility. But involuntary means without malice aforethought and if there was no malice, then why was the prosecution trying to hard to prove malice? I think they threw up a hail mary at the end that probably hurt more than helped.

 

[lurflurf]

^Zimmerman claims he was on the ground being beaten. The evidence is not consistent with that. Zimmerman's injuries were insignificant, Martin's has no offensive injuries, blood splatter was not consistent Zimmerman's version, with it is difficult to draw a gun and shoot someone who is onto of you beating you. Even if it happened as Zimmerman describes we have B walking home doing nothing wrong, A mentally ill engaging in vigilante fetish play, A stalkes B in a car, A chases B on foot with gun, B in fear for his like "attacks for no reason" (in fact if there was any attack the reason was fear of death), A despite martial arts training and instigating the attack gets a boo boo, A shoots child dead, months later idiots celebrate. That is a very inclusive definition of self defense. Maybe Zimmerman should not have been convicted, but either way he should be ashamed.


To everyone of legal age now is the time to get tattoo of
$$\large{\mathbb{Z}}$$
on your forehead
surely in five years it will still seem like a good idea

 

[Evo]

I myself am not racist, but do know that the likely hood of a young black male wearing his hood up in a wealthy neighborhood being up to no good is very high. Not to say that it's because he's black, but you know what I mean. Zimmerman was on neighborhood watch, and there was a shady character in his neighborhood. While he was doing nothing wrong, can you blame him for his suspicion?

Zimmerman wasn't on watch that night. It was raining, of course the kid had his hood up. Do you know anything about this case?

 

[WannabeNewton]

Maybe Zimmerman should not have been convicted, but either way he should be ashamed.

These kinds of ill-fated deaths are not uncommon by any means of course because people of various ages are killed all the time; the media certainly glorified this case like crazy to the point of inciting needless riots across the country. But what does it matter in the end; it won't bring the kid back to life. I can't imagine being that kid's parents.

 

[russ_watters]

Attached is the portion of the jury instructions dealing with self-defense, so you have some context.
EDIT: Wow, it looks like I missed the very next sentence: "However, if from the evidence you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that George Zimmerman was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find him guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved." So it's just the usual burden of proof for the prosecution.

I do indeed read it the same way you do. That surprises me. I was under the impression that self defense was typically an affirmative defense, but like you said it logically can't be both at the same time. Ie, a 25% chance it was self defense means only a 75% chance it wasn't, which isn't beyond a reasonable doubt.

I don't think there is any precise cutoff for reasonable. In most cases one would not be able to assign a numerical chance. A 25% chance is certainly reasonable. A 1% chance might even be reasonable, but would result in few convictions.

You are correct and I was just using it for illustrative purposes. Still, I'd think 90% would probably be a good standard. At 99% you start getting into some wild theories to fill the last 1%.

 

[KC_Smallz]

Zimmerman wasn't on watch that night. It was raining, of course the kid had his hood up. Do you know anything about this case?

If you're on neighborhood watch (at least where I'm from) you're always "on watch." I did know it was raining, which makes sense. All I'm saying is see both sides. Trayvon didn't deserve to die. But I also don't think Zimmerman deserves abuse for make a spurt of the moment eat or be eaten decision. Was it the wrong one, yes. Did he try to kill him? That really depends on whose story you believe.

 

[Evo]

If you're on neighborhood watch (at least where I'm from) you're always "on watch." I did know it was raining, which makes sense. All I'm saying is see both sides. Trayvon didn't deserve to die. But I also don't think Zimmerman deserves abuse for make a spurt of the moment eat or be eaten decision. Was it the wrong one, yes. Did he try to kill him? That really depends on whose story you believe.

I agree. The sad thing is that if Zimmerman had followed his neighborhood watch rules, he would have reported it and then gone home. The rules clearly state not to get involved, not to pursue. The Martins have an iron clad wrongful death suit, IMO, based on Zimmerman's actions. Perhaps that was all this should have been, taking the Florida law into account.

 

[KC_Smallz]

I agree. The sad thing is that if Zimmerman had followed his neighborhood watch rules, he would have reported it and then gone home. The rules clearly state not to get involved, not to pursue.

Yes, he shouldn't have. I just don't see race as a motive. Very sad situation. Although I personally agree with the verdict I immensely sympathize with the Martin family. I can't imagine how difficult their situation is.

 

[russ_watters]

The 911 calls from witnesses say that two men were arguing, then started to wrestle and that one started to scream for help and was shot. Listen to these calls. There is not one person saying that one was beating the other.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/03/what-happened-trayvon-martin-explained

Evo, you just can't take a March article from Mother Jones (!) at face value. The media is *lying to you* and you are buying it. At trial, that just isn't how it went:

Two witnesses called by the prosecution today described George Zimmerman as being on the losing end of a fight with Trayvon Martin in the moments before Zimmerman shot the Florida teenager.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zim...tion-witnesses/story?id=19517236#.UeTYFfnVD9U

Did you read the experts testimony on his lack of injuries that I posted?

Yes, I did. She said the injuries were not life threatening. You do understand that the injuries don't have to be life threatening in order for Zimmerman to feel his life is threatened, right?

Zimmerman's injuries could be that he was punched in the nose and fell backwards and hit his head.

Could be, yes. Is "could be" good enough to get a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt?

Zimmerman's injuries were very minimal, not at all representative of a beating.

I've bumped my head a number of times without drawing blood and still felt like i got my bell rung. I can't see considering a bump on the head that is hard enough to draw blood to not be considered "a beating".

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/...man-medical-examiner-20130702,0,1358679.story

Lets not assume that Zimmerman is telling the truth when live calls to 911 don't corroborate his story.

I'm really not clear on what you are claiming there, Evo. Qualitative labeling is not how you make a case: The fact of the matter is that Zimmerman had multiple wounds sustained at the hands of Martin, who was in a position of dominance. That's completely consistent with the factual content of Zimmerman's testimony.