The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

[25Caliber]

Fair point, king. You are right...as it turns out, GZs suspicions were wrong. Trayvon went to the store, bought some skittles, was talking to his gf on the phone and then walking in pretty much a direct route to his dads fiances house.

I think the temporary stop that Trayvon had standing in the middle of GZs neighbors house was the cause for the initial suspicion. But again, as it turns out, Trayvon was not scoping out a house to rob or vandalize...GZs suspicion was wrong.

That said, he is a neighborhood watch captain and his suspicions wont always be correct. Trayvon could have simply asked why he was being followed and went about his day. He didnt do that. GZ wasnt breaking any laws either and did not deserve to be punched in the face either...as it turns out Trayvons suspicions were wrong also.

we do not know if zimmermans suspicions was wrong or right

We won't know because he was followed for walking along eating skittles, drinking tea and that was deemed "suspicious." Now he's dead. Would this person be alive if it was a white woman, 40 years old, wearing a dress and eating those same skittles and tea?

Hey Jackson, I see your point and my quick answer would be yes a person fitting that description would still be alive for sure. But that description doesnt fit the profile of the recent robberies in the neighborhood...trayvons does...so to me the descriptions are apples and oranges.

 

[Sunshine]

Shit I log off before 7 p.m. and this thread grows 9 pages.

 

[jon_berzerk]

I saw the video up until the point you mentioned. I see it as inconclusive as to him cuffing his hand as if he was going for a gun. But why would TM punch him? And where was GZ holding his gun during this exchange?

remember this is a matter of split seconds and in close prox to each other

had zimmerman pulled his gun martin probably would not have noticed it

if zimmerman was pulling it when he got punched the gun most likely would

have been by his side

 

[dilloduck]

we do not know if zimmermans suspicions was wrong or right

We won't know because he was followed for walking along eating skittles, drinking tea and that was deemed "suspicious." Now he's dead. Would this person be alive if it was a white woman, 40 years old, wearing a dress and eating those same skittles and tea?

Hey Jackson, I see your point and my quick answer would be yes a person fitting that description would still be alive for sure. But that description doesnt fit the profile of the recent robberies in the neighborhood...trayvons does...so to me the descriptions are apples and oranges.

Pure speculation. If you don't think white women can be dangerous you need to check out Jody Arias.

 

[Sunshine]

WW So tell me how this is going to go. If the defense is to make a prima facie showing of self defense (every thing I hear locally says that will be their move) does the prosecution go to bat first as normal and the defense actually begins their self defense showing when it's their turn, then the prosecution would have to come back around to prove it wasn't self defense -- ??

An affirmative defense merely asserts that there are facts not already in evidence and must be 'pled in' before the trial begins. Another example is the 'insanity' defense. You can't wait until the trial starts and then use what is enumerated in the law as a defense. It is more about timing than anything else, otherwise the trial goes as per normal.

An affirmative defense is also allowed under rules of Criminal Procedure. For example, a defendant accused of assault may claim to have been intoxicated or insane, to have struck out in Self-Defense, or to have had an alibi for the night in question. Any one of these affirmative defenses must be asserted by showing that there are facts in addition to the ones in the indictment or information charging the defendant and that those additional facts are legally sufficient to excuse the defendant.

Affirmative Defense legal definition of Affirmative Defense. Affirmative Defense synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

 

[Sunshine]

The SCOTUS on 'fighting words.'

The fighting-words doctrine was first articulated in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942). Chaplinsky was convicted of violating a New Hampshire statute that prohibited the use of offensive, insulting language toward persons in public places after making several inflammatory comments to a city official. The Court, in upholding the statute as constitutional, set down those famous words:

There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words — those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.

Tellingly, despite continued reaffirmation of the fighting-words doctrine, the Supreme Court has declined to uphold any convictions for fighting words since Chaplinsky.

In fact, in Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949), the Court immediately began a long process of narrowing and reshaping the broad scope of the original fighting-words doctrine. Terminiello was charged with breaching the peace after publicly insulting a group of adversaries. While not addressing whether Terminiello's speech constituted fighting words, the Court found that the breach of the peace statute in question was overbroad because it permitted convictions for both fighting words and constitutionally protected expression. Concluding that speech that merely causes anger or outrage does not amount to fighting words, the Court opined that speech is protected unless the expression is "likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious intolerable evil that rises above mere inconvenience or annoyance." The Court explicitly stated that it would not assume that certain words inevitably provoke violent reactions by individuals. Rather, the Court's analysis focuses on the context in which the words were uttered, not merely the content of the words themselves.

More at:
freedomforum.org: What is the Fighting Words Doctrine?

Are you still on the hypothetical about the yelling and grabbing arm? I made that up, it was pretend. Go back back back! I want to know about the prima facie the defense is going to do and how the trial is going to go with the defense presentation of self defense. Give me a legal-less hypothetical on how the process is going to work.

Just read my post on affirmative defense.

 

[25Caliber]

I saw the video up until the point you mentioned. I see it as inconclusive as to him cuffing his hand as if he was going for a gun. But why would TM punch him? And where was GZ holding his gun during this exchange?

Good point...I think it odd too that he would just walk up swinging punches. But if GZ was reaching for something, well then I could see him getting rushed before the person pulled out whatever he was reaching for.

As far as holding the gun? The gun was in a holster on GZs right hip...the gun was holstered at this point in the exchange. I dont believe Trayvon would be dumb enough to charge someone who was pointing a gun at him, so I dont think the gun was pulled yet.

 

[Sunshine]

The SCOTUS on 'fighting words.'

Just curious, what does that have to do with the discussion about someone following someone else half-way across a housing development who tried to evade at least twice. That the person followed in a vehicle and then chased them on foot created a situation where they could be perceived as provoking hostile action by creating an imminent treat (from Martins perspective)?

Let's take a similar situation, if some guy was following my daughter half-way across campus in a car and when she tried to escape that individual jumped out and began pursuit (from her perspective) is there any doubt that the male following her could be perceived as a threat?


>>>>

Just walking behind someone is not illegal nor is it a threat regardless where it happened or how long it happens. Hell, if it were, I would be attacking half the neighborhood where I live 40 minutes away from town. Occasionally a car will be behind or I behind another car and one of us will follow the other through the entire 40 miles with all the turns and twists. It is just someone else who lives here. You all are trying to make it look like Z provoked li'l Trayvon with words into attacking him, and that just won't fly.

And the thing about the 'following' is that Z lived in the same neighborhood and had every right to be there even walking behind li'l Trayvon.

 

[25Caliber]

We won't know because he was followed for walking along eating skittles, drinking tea and that was deemed "suspicious." Now he's dead. Would this person be alive if it was a white woman, 40 years old, wearing a dress and eating those same skittles and tea?

Hey Jackson, I see your point and my quick answer would be yes a person fitting that description would still be alive for sure. But that description doesnt fit the profile of the recent robberies in the neighborhood...trayvons does...so to me the descriptions are apples and oranges.

Pure speculation. If you don't think white women can be dangerous you need to check out Jody Arias.

The point isnt that they CAN be dangerous...the point was would GZ have had the same suspicion...I dont think he would have and I wouldnt expect him to...that doesnt fit the profile of the recent robberies, so he most likely wouldnt have been suspicious.

Now if the profile of the recent robberies was middle aged white woman, then perhaps he would have been suspicious.

 

[Sunshine]

Are you still on the hypothetical about the yelling and grabbing arm? I made that up, it was pretend. Go back back back! I want to know about the prima facie the defense is going to do and how the trial is going to go with the defense presentation of self defense. Give me a legal-less hypothetical on how the process is going to work.

I took the SCOTUS on fighting words as meaning that whatever words were spoken between M and Z would not be viewed as provoking violent action from either. The words alone won't mean a thing; however, if there is a situation where someone is telling you, "You are going to die tonight!", while reaching for a weapon (either one you have on yourself or one they have on them), then those words could be viewed as a violent act. The one saying those words could then be seen as the aggressor.

Am I right in how I'm understanding this?

From my understaing, not quite.

From the same link that Sunshine provided:

"The Supreme Court reversed Street's conviction because his comments, considered a possible factor in his conviction, were constitutionally protected by the First Amendment. Emphasizing that the mere offensiveness of words does not strip them of constitutional protection, the Court again noted that fighting words must present an actual threat of immediate violence, not merely offensive content."​

The fighting words doctrine does not protect whatever words are spoken. Only offensive speech. If a person conveys a thread of immediate violence, that is not protected under fighting words.


ETA: Just to be clear I'm not saying there is any evidence of fighting words that night.


>>>>

I never said that threats of violence were protected. I posted that to show you dweebs that the 'n' word or it's equivalents, which you all claim Z said, is not considered by the courts to be a 'fighting word.' I even bolded it and put it in red. Now, what did Z say to li'l Trayvon that was a threat of violence. And don't give me any more of that 'following' shit. Z lived there in that complex, and had the right to be there.


SS

 

[jon_berzerk]

live feed zimmerman jury selection

Watch George Zimmerman Live Stream | WildAboutTrial.com

 

[Sunshine]

Blah blah. I hope Zimmerman gets life.

No you don't. You want him lynched.

 

[Snookie]

I took the SCOTUS on fighting words as meaning that whatever words were spoken between M and Z would not be viewed as provoking violent action from either. The words alone won't mean a thing; however, if there is a situation where someone is telling you, "You are going to die tonight!", while reaching for a weapon (either one you have on yourself or one they have on them), then those words could be viewed as a violent act. The one saying those words could then be seen as the aggressor.

Am I right in how I'm understanding this?

From my understaing, not quite.

From the same link that Sunshine provided:

"The Supreme Court reversed Street's conviction because his comments, considered a possible factor in his conviction, were constitutionally protected by the First Amendment. Emphasizing that the mere offensiveness of words does not strip them of constitutional protection, the Court again noted that fighting words must present an actual threat of immediate violence, not merely offensive content."​

The fighting words doctrine does not protect whatever words are spoken. Only offensive speech. If a person conveys a thread of immediate violence, that is not protected under fighting words.


ETA: Just to be clear I'm not saying there is any evidence of fighting words that night.


>>>>

I never said that threats of violence were protected. I posted that to show you dweebs that the 'n' word or it's equivalents, which you all claim Z said, is not considered by the courts to be a 'fighting word.' I even bolded it and put it in red. Now, what did Z say to li'l Trayvon that was a threat of violence. And don't give me any more of that 'following' shit. Z lived there in that complex, and had the right to be there.


SS

Maybe not to the courts but to a black person it is fighting words in the circumstances and context in which the ****** word was used.

 

[Sunshine]

If he didn't intend to murder TM, why was he chasing someone in the night with a firearm, against the counsel of a law enforcement professional?

Again, walking behind someone is not illegal.

 

[Cuyo]

The SCOTUS on 'fighting words.'



More at:
freedomforum.org: What is the Fighting Words Doctrine?

Are you still on the hypothetical about the yelling and grabbing arm? I made that up, it was pretend. Go back back back! I want to know about the prima facie the defense is going to do and how the trial is going to go with the defense presentation of self defense. Give me a legal-less hypothetical on how the process is going to work.

Just read my post on affirmative defense.

You mean the one where you said it was only for civil trials?

Rut roe, I think the quote feature is used properly here, how will you insult me whilst avoiding the question this time...

 

[Cuyo]

If he didn't intend to murder TM, why was he chasing someone in the night with a firearm, against the counsel of a law enforcement professional?

Again, walking behind someone is not illegal.

He's not charged with walking behind someone. He's charged with killing someone, and he's claiming self-defense in an altercation that he appears to have initiated.

 

[Sunshine]

Would any of you be arguing GZ's point of view if TM was one of your unarmed teenage relatives?

I doubt it seriously.

So what REALLY then are we debating here?

HMMMMMM?

I raised two teenagers. They were never out carousing around the neighborhood at night. They were never expelled from school. They stayed at home at night and did school work. In the summer they did other things like band and camp, etc. Your question is stupid and entirely moot.



SS

 

[Sunshine]

Would any of you be arguing GZ's point of view if TM was one of your unarmed teenage relatives?

I doubt it seriously.

So what REALLY then are we debating here?

HMMMMMM?

My teenage relatives would answer questions posed by an adult. They wouldn't bloody his nose and head or cop an attitude because they were being asked why they were hanging around outside at night in the rain. Seriously.

My daughter goes to school away from home. She and I took martial arts when she was growing up.

My daughter has been trained that if a guy following you halfway across campus (housing development) and then pursues you on foot after trying to get away is always to be treated as a threat. If they get close, take them out. Key shafts extending between fingers to go for the eyes. Side kick to the knees to keep them from chasing you.



>>>>

Walking behind someone is not illegal. You probably set the poor girl up for a similar situation.

 

[Sunshine]

Questions I hope the trial will answer...

What made Zimmerman follow Martin? What did Martin do that was suspicious? Does Martin make a habit of following all persons who are alone and walking in the area?

I understand there is a list of calls Zimmerman made to the police on "suspicious persons" before. What will that list show in terms of sex, age, race or places where the "Suspicious persons" were walking and the time of day or night the call was made. Will it show a pattern that might be important to the case?

Irrelevant. Walking behind someone is not illegal. If there is some objective standard for what is 'suspicious' then you need to post it. The Terry case deals with it, but that case involves the police in a stop and frisk situation. Not a neighbor watching out for hoodlums.

 

[Snookie]

If Z is found not guilty can you imagine the precedent it will set?