Is Canada a Safer Alternative After Zimmerman Verdict?

  • News
  • Thread starter WannabeNewton
  • Start date
In summary, George Zimmerman was found not guilty of the murder of Trayvon Martin. The former neighborhood watch leader was charged with second degree murder after he shot and killed the 17-year-old in 2012. The prosecution attempted to prove that the language Zimmerman used on the phone showed that he acted with ill will or spite, elements of the second degree murder charge. However, the jury found Zimmerman not guilty of this charge as well.
  • #36
SW VandeCarr said:
The forensic evidence clearly established that Martin was shot from below. Zimmerman also had injuries to the back of his head as well as an injury to his nose. When the forensic evidence was introduced, the prosecution abandoned their theory that Zimmerman was on top. There was never any evidence presented as to who started the fight.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/...orge-zimmerman-trial-20130709,0,6005164.story

yes...exactly.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
I'm kinda scared about the potential riots/protests. I don't live in Florida but still.
 
  • #38
SW VandeCarr said:
The forensic evidence clearly established that Martin was shot from below. Zimmerman also had injuries to the back of his head as well as an injury to his nose. When the forensic evidence was introduced, the prosecution abandoned their theory that Zimmerman was on top. There was never any evidence presented as to who started the fight.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/...orge-zimmerman-trial-20130709,0,6005164.story
It's one person's scenario, I watch enough real life crime stories to know how often "expert witnesses" are proven wrong. It's also said that if things happened the way Zimmerman claimed, it would have been physically impossible for him to get his gun out from where it was positioned.

Guy said Zimmerman could not have reached his gun if Martin was straddling him as described and said Martin must have been withdrawing from the altercation or at least in a less-threatening position. “The defendant didn’t shoot Trayvon Martin because he had to, he shot him because he wanted to. That’s the bottom line,” Guy said.

http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2013/07/12/zimmerman-trial-live-blog-closing-arguments/

Zimmerman was also proven to have lied about Martin grabbing his gun, there was no dna on the gun.

Mark Osterman, Zimmerman’s best friend and the author of a book defending him, testified Tuesday that Zimmerman told him on the night of the shooting that Trayvon briefly grabbed his gun as the two wrestled on the ground. Mr. Osterman said Zimmerman said to him, “somehow I broke his grip on the gun when guy grabbed between the grip and the hammer.

Teenager Trayvon Martin's DNA was nowhere to be found on the gun George Zimmerman used to fatally shoot him, a forensics expert testified Wednesday – a development that may cast doubt on the contention that the 17-year-old tried to grab the gun during a fight with Mr. Zimmerman in a gated community in Sanford, Fla.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justic...DNA-on-George-Zimmerman-gun-expert-says-video
 
  • #41
reenmachine said:
I just looked at the picture of both guys and one thing comes to mind , how the **** did Zimmerman let that guy beat him up? The black boy looks like he's 12 years old and weighting 120 pounds in the pictures.

Sorry for the irrelevant comment but it makes me wonder.What kind of guy thinks he's a cop yet can't handle that boy in a fist fight?

Well Zimmerman's fighting teacher testified he was not very good.
 
  • #42
reenmachine said:
I just looked at the picture of both guys and one thing comes to mind , how the **** did Zimmerman let that guy beat him up? The black boy looks like he's 12 years old and weighting 120 pounds in the pictures.

Sorry for the irrelevant comment but it makes me wonder.What kind of guy thinks he's a cop yet can't handle that boy in a fist fight?

Trayvon Martin is 5' 11'' and zimmerman is 5' 7''

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin
 
  • #43
Woopydalan said:
Trayvon Martin is 5' 11'' and zimmerman is 5' 7''

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin
And Zimmerman weighed more and had a loaded gun. According to your link
Zimmerman's height is shown as 5′8″ (1.73 m); and his weight at 200 lb (91 kg) on the Sanford Police Department Offense Report for February 26, 2012, the night of the shooting.
Did you have some kind of point?
 
Last edited:
  • #44
russ_watters said:
FYI, this case was not about the stand your ground law. Not sure where it came from(I think it was the early media sensationalism), but it was not part of the case.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...n-you-have-no-further-business-with-the-court

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law

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

Also from NPR:
In closing arguments Friday, Zimmerman's defense sought to hammer home its contention that the self-styled neighborhood watch volunteer was defending himself when he fatally shot the unarmed Martin during a scuffle in February 2012 in a gated community.

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.

You're also appealing to media sensationalism, but the most coverage that Trayvon Martin's death garnered, for weeks after his demise, was a few paragraphs in his local newspaper. It wasn't until activists had gained enough attention, and had nagged national media so often, that it became a national case. It's a disservice to these people who felt strongly towards this case to presume that outcry is due to the media, when the media was never even involved in the beginning.
 
  • #45
Evo said:
And Zimmerman weighed more and had a loaded gun. According to your link Did you have some kind of point?

Bruce Lee was about 3/4 my weight, at the most, and he could destroy me in a fight.
 
  • #46
Physics_UG said:
Bruce Lee was about 3/4 my weight, at the most, and he could destroy me in a fight.
And this has nothing to do with Martin, he's not an expert in martial arts, hasn't even taken classes in them AFAIK.

Please don't make pointless posts.

Zimmerman got off because of reasonable doubt, it's legal. You may think Zimmerman was right in disobeying his neighborhood watch and the police and causing an unnecessary altercation that ended with the killing of Martin. That's fine, if that's how you feel.

Other people feel that if Zimmerman had obeyed the police and not taken the law into his own hands Martin would still be alive.
 
Last edited:
  • #47
Evo said:
And this has nothing to do with Martin, he's not an expert in martial arts, hasn't even taken classes in them AFAIK.

Please don't make pointless posts.

My point was just because someone weighs more doesn't make them stronger or more capable in a fight.

Also, the pictures the media posted of Trayvon at first were from when he was 12 years old. They wanted to spark a race war, which is why they posted those pics.
 
  • #49
Rumors that I have not followed the case are , well, inaccurate.

The PR firm of Julison Communications
http://julisoncom.com/we_are.html
was hired early on to create public images of Zimmerman as a racist stalker and Martin as an angelic schoolboy. They did a pretty good job as evidenced by this thread.

Unless you saw Martin's Twitter pages (when they were still on internet) you might believe it.

There's a dark side to this whole story including sworn testimony of Miami Police Department's 'burying' of criminal activity by black school kids .
http://www.scribd.com/doc/135564937/Sergeant-William-Tagle-Internal-Affairs-Investigative-Report

Martin was suspended for having marijuana, burglary tools and jewelry in his backpack. That was in Miami Herald.

Police reports were altered to say it was found in parking lot. Above link has the depositions.

There was a substantial tort at stake against the homeowners' association provided Zimmerman was found guilty, or better yet arrested and not tried. Another 'Quirky Florida Law'.

I will not be surprised if Zimmerman sues a few folks for conspiracy to deprive him of a fair trial.

While I don't believe either of them was an innocent Billy Budd character
another wrong wouldn't make this right.

old jim
 
  • #50
Zimmerman most likely just asked him for ID since he was the 'head' of the neighborhood watch organization and was frustrated because of the crimes being committed in his neighborhood. It is my opinion that Trayvon, at that point, threw Zimmerman on the ground and beat him. Zimmerman also never offered any information about Trayvon's race until the police asked for a description.
 
  • #51
I fail to understand why scientific evidence should be discounted in favor of the prosecution's contentions based only on some testimony. Zimmerman, not Martin, had documented injuries. The direction of the gunshot wound was established by an established expert. If you're going to refute that forensic evidence, you need equally or more convincing counter evidence. Even accepting that Zimmerman's account of Martin's position was wrong, Zimmerman's injuries and the upward direction of the gunshot are not refuted.
 
Last edited:
  • #52
jim hardy said:
While I don't believe either of them was an innocent Billy Budd character
another wrong wouldn't make this right.
That's certainly a nice point. I agree jim.
 
  • #53
But Jim, the fact is that Martin wasn't doing anything wrong, and Zimmerman took the law into his own hands, disobeying both the neighborhood watch rules and direct orders from the police to stop following Martin. It wouldn't matter if Martin had murdered someone previously, he wasn't breaking any laws at the time according to Zimmerman himself. The stuff you posted is a smear campaign that has nothing to do with Martin's actions on the night he was murdered.
 
  • #54
jim hardy said:
Rumors that I have not followed the case are , well, inaccurate.

The PR firm of Julison Communications
http://julisoncom.com/we_are.html
was hired early on to create public images of Zimmerman as a racist stalker and Martin as an angelic schoolboy. They did a pretty good job as evidenced by this thread.

Unless you saw Martin's Twitter pages (when they were still on internet) you might believe it.

There's a dark side to this whole story including sworn testimony of Miami Police Department's 'burying' of criminal activity by black school kids .
http://www.scribd.com/doc/135564937/Sergeant-William-Tagle-Internal-Affairs-Investigative-Report

Martin was suspended for having marijuana, burglary tools and jewelry in his backpack. That was in Miami Herald.

Police reports were altered to say it was found in parking lot. Above link has the depositions.

There was a substantial tort at stake against the homeowners' association provided Zimmerman was found guilty, or better yet arrested and not tried. Another 'Quirky Florida Law'.

I will not be surprised if Zimmerman sues a few folks for conspiracy to deprive him of a fair trial.

While I don't believe either of them was an innocent Billy Budd character
another wrong wouldn't make this right.

old jim

Also, the ad hominim arguments against Zimmerman's legal record don't hold up in court, generally. I don't think they were mentioned in the trial.
 
  • #55
Physics_UG said:
Zimmerman most likely just asked him for ID since he was the 'head' of the neighborhood watch organization and was frustrated because of the crimes being committed in his neighborhood. It is my opinion that Trayvon, at that point, threw Zimmerman on the ground and beat him. Zimmerman also never offered any information about Trayvon's race until the police asked for a description.

It's best that you try to link to something to back up what appears to be only speculation.
 
  • #56
AnTiFreeze3 said:
It's best that you try to link to something to back up what appears to be only speculation.

Indeed. Let's stick to the facts here. So Physics_UG, I want to hear some reference that backs up your story.
 
  • #57
SW VandeCarr said:
I fail to understand why scientific evidence should be discounted in favor of the prosecution contentions based only on some testimony. Zimmerman, not Martin, had documented injuries. The direction of the gunshot wound was established by an established expert. If you're going to refute that forensic evidence, you need equally or more convincing counter evidence. Even accepting that Zimmerman's account of Martin's position was wrong, Zimmerman's injuries and the upward direction of the gunshot are not refuted.
And that could have resulted from a number of positions. 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 representitive 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
 
  • #58
SW VandeCarr said:
Zimmerman, not Martin, had documented injuries.
Certainly a gunshot wound does not count as an injury. Its not like it could cause death or anything. If some fool tries to shoot you just say "thanks for the ventilation."
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
  • #59
Evo said:
But Jim, the fact is that Martin wasn't doing anything wrong, and Zimmerman took the law into his own hands, disobeying both the neighborhood watch rules and direct orders from the police to stop following Martin. It wouldn't matter if Martin had murdered someone previously, he wasn't breaking any laws at the time according to Zimmerman himself. The stuff you posted is a smear campaign that has nothing to do with Martin's actions on the night he was murdered.

I have no reason to smear Martin.

At first I believed as you do still, that Zimmerman hunted him down. I assumed redneck vs black kid race killing.

Then little facts began creeping out.

Zimmerman was the volunteer "Neighborhood Watch" guy for the homeowners' association.
"Who are you and what are you doing here" is not an unreasonable question to ask of a non-resident in a gated community. Especially if he's been running away from you.
Trayvon didn't live there he lived in Miami with his mom, was in Sanford visiting his dad who'd gone out to dinner with girlfriend and left the kid on his own.
And I don't buy that proceeding to pommel the neighborhood watch guy is proper response to an inquiry as to who you are and why you are walking around a private community. Especially when you don't live there.
A simple "I'm Trayvon visiting my Dad in apt so-and-so " would have defused the situation.

Since I wasn't there I don't know what happened . And there's only one fellow who was there. And he says it was self defense. And he has the scars and the written reports of the first-responder medics to lend credibility to that claim.

So - what else could a rational person do but try to glean some of the participants' backgrounds?

As soon as I did a picture emerged very different from what was being painted.

and that's why I am not outraged by the verdict, or even surprised.

jim
 
  • #60
I think it should be said of me that I think the correct verdict was reached; please hear me out, because this appears to disagree with several members with whom my opinions typically align.

The whole concept behind this is that George Zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty. There needs to be enough evidence to where George Zimmerman could be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt. The jurors, and many people, with me included, feel as though the evidence wasn't convincing enough to charge him with 2nd degree murder, considering the laws that are currently in place in Florida.

With that being said, had Trayvon Martin killed George Zimmerman, I think he would have equally been acquitted, under the pretense of self-defense.

I understand the arguments that George Zimmerman was told by the dispatcher to cease his pursuit of Martin, but the key thing here is that it was not illegal for Mr. Zimmerman to continue his pursuit. Dispatchers are not police officers, and do not have the actual authority to tell someone what to do. He technically acted within the law.

I think that the real issue is that George Zimmerman, without breaking any laws, was capable of putting himself in a position to kill Trayvon Martin without being convicted. Clearly the real problem is that the laws currently in place allow for this to happen.

George Zimmerman should not have approached Trayvon Martin, but Trayvon Martin similarly should not have, as the supplied evidence is inclined to show, attacked Mr. Zimmerman, and pinned him to the ground. In the end, Martin ends up dead, and there isn't enough evidence to convince the jury that Zimmerman is guilty of murder of the 2nd degree.

EDIT:

" ... pinned him to the ground" is a bit of an embellishment. But as shown by the forensic evidence, Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman at some point, explaining the upwards trajectory of the gunshot.
 
Last edited:
  • #61
jim hardy said:
I have no reason to smear Martin.
I didn't say you were smearing him, it was part of a smear campaign against him.

At first I believed as you do still, that Zimmerman hunted him down. I assumed redneck vs black kid race killing.
Did you red the transcripts of the calls Zimmerman made? He was chasing after martin.

And I don't buy that proceeding to pommel the neighborhood watch guy is proper response to an inquiry
Did you read what I posted? Zimmerman wasn't beaten, he was apparently punched once. He didn't even require stitches, I don't even know if he required a bandaid.

You know that in the transcripts Zimmerman said Martin had run away and he didn't know where he was, but Zimmerman continued to look for him after police told him no?
 
  • #62
AnTiFreeze3 said:
George Zimmerman should not have approached Trayvon Martin, but Trayvon Martin similarly should not have, as the supplied evidence is inclined to show, attacked Mr. Zimmerman, and pinned him to the ground. In the end, Martin ends up dead, and there isn't enough evidence to convince the jury that Zimmerman is guilty of murder of the 2nd degree.
There are no witnesses to this, it's a story from Zimmerman. On the call to the police Zimmerman says that Martin ran away. It was Zimmerman that hunted him down.

EDIT:

" ... pinned him to the ground" is a bit of an embellishment. But as shown by the forensic evidence, Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman at some point, explaining the upwards trajectory of the gunshot.
That's one scenario, it's not proven. There is evidence that show this isn't true. I already posted them, eyewitnesses that say Zimmerman was on top and that if Zimmerman is telling the truth (which he's been found not to in several instances) he could not have pulled out his gun with Martin straddling him as he claims.
 
  • #63
Zimmerman was not the volunteer "Neighborhood Watch" guy. That was an excuse. He was playing policeman, Batman, or somethingman. Zimmerman was not performing neighborhood watch nor following neighborhood watch protocol. If some obviously mentally ill person chases you, asks you questions, and pulls a gun it is justified to beat them senseless. Unfortunately Martin did not do that, if he had he might be alive today.
 
  • #64
Evo said:
Don't try to defend yourself in Florida, the person who attacked you can legally kill you.

Not quite. The way I understand things work (or don't) in Florida, you can defend yourself, but only using lethal force, in the name of "standing your ground".

So arm yourself at all times. If there's a need to defend yourself, announce loudly that you're standing your ground, and shoot to kill. That way there's no one to refute your story, you get off scot free after a lengthy trial that propels you to minor-celeb status and you probably get to clean up on the talk show circuit afterward. :rolleyes:
 
  • #65
Evo said:
That's one scenario, it's not proven.
That's the only plausible scenario presented at the trial, Evo. Even most of the prosecutors' witnesses ended up corroborating Zimmerman's account.

There is evidence that show this isn't true.
There is very weak evidence that shows this isn't true. Weak evidence does not make for "beyond a reasonable doubt". The prosecutors tried to make the case that Zimmerman was on top, but this line of argument could not stand up to cross examination.

This case should never have gone to trial as second degree murder. Classical prosecutorial excess.
 
  • #66
You know that in the transcripts Zimmerman said Martin had run away and he didn't know where he was, but Zimmerman continued to look for him after police told him no?


I know that Zimmerman said
he had lost him and was walking back to his truck, possibly in response to police request I don't know. Then Trayvon appeared from behind wherever he'd hid.
Zimmerman claimed Trayvon confronted him and said to him "You got a problem ?"
Apparently Zimmerman is not a Clint Eastwood 'take charge' guy because (he said) he responded "No", which sounds to me sort of obsequious.
To which Trayvon responded "Now you do", punched him & got him down on the sidewalk and was slamming his head into the sidewalk.

ABC news that night showed the now famous news clip of Zimmerman being taken out of the police car .
I saw briefly a wound to the back of his head which ABC News quickly covered with their logo. The attending officer stopped mid stride to look at the wound but it was hidden from TV viewers by the ABC logo. A few weeks later ABC re-ran it without the logo and a wound is clearly visible through Zimmerman's hair.

I don't even know if he required a bandaid.
If I recall he refused treatment. I might've too were my ego badly bruised by a recent thrashing.


Did you red the transcripts of the calls Zimmerman made? He was chasing after martin.
Well Z was the neighborhood watch guy and somebody was running away. It would not be unnatural to want to know where he was. Do I recall correctly dispatcher also said they had somebody on the way? Would you as the semi-responsible party want to be empty handed when they arrived?

I'm not going to condemn or paean him for chasing Martin - it's just I can see why a reasonable person might have done so in the circumstance.

We all wish it hadn't happened.
"Don't take your guns to town, boy, leave your guns at home." j cash
 
  • #67
Evo said:
You can kill them, but then you are guilty of at least manslaughter.

I meant legally. Of course you're physically able to kill them. You can kill anybody at any time, whether legal or not.
But if you're going to be guilty of manslaughter, then you can't legally kill them. So according to you, in order for that person to act within the law, they must allow themselves to be beaten to death.
 
  • #68
leroyjenkens said:
So according to you, in order for that person to act within the law, they must allow themselves to be beaten to death.
Since when is killing a 17 year old kid the only way to get him to stop beating you, especially when you have the butt end of your gun to beat him unconscious with like lurflurf said? I agree with anti that unequivocal evidence for the case was not of luxury here and that Zimmerman's team made compelling arguments but your argument makes no sense.
 
  • #69
leroyjenkens said:
I meant legally. Of course you're physically able to kill them. You can kill anybody at any time, whether legal or not.
But if you're going to be guilty of manslaughter, then you can't legally kill them. So according to you, in order for that person to act within the law, they must allow themselves to be beaten to death.

Assume the following events (I did not say it happened like this, this is just an example)
- A attacks B
- B defends himself and stars beating up A
- A is losing the fight and is risking to be beaten to death, he draws a gun and shoots

I think that in this case, A should be guilty of manslaughter since he started the fight.

So the big question for me is whether Zimmerman started the fight or not.
 
  • #70
micromass said:
Assume the following events (I did not say it happened like this, this is just an example)
- A attacks B
- B defends himself and stars beating up A
- A is losing the fight and is risking to be beaten to death, he draws a gun and shoots

I think that in this case, A should be guilty of manslaughter since he started the fight.

So the big question for me is whether Zimmerman started the fight or not.

Settling disputes of this nature is why we have courts. The jury already decided.
 

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top