<p>There is absolutely no evidence of this. It is what you choose to believe because of some personal bias. On every 911 call played in court ZM mentioned the suspects race only after being asked by the dispatcher. </p>
<p>I think TM may have viewed the world through race is because he made racial comments about Zimmerman. There was no reason for him to do so unless race was a significant issue in his world. But, I don’t see any evidence that TM took action against GZ because of his race. </p>
<p>If GZ was on top and grabbed TM’s shirt that would be a good explanation of how the shirt was away from his skin. That’s an interesting point.</p>
<p>Lindz, this is my take, but I think GZ saw someone in the neighborhood he didn’t know so that aroused his suspicion, especially given the break-ins in the neighborhood. I don’t think GZ was a good guy. I’m sure in his own mind he was, but he went about his ‘duties’ in an absurd way. He shouldn’t have had a gun, he should not have exited his vehicle, he should have waited for the police to get there. So why didn’t I question Razorsharp’s characterization of TM? TM used a racial slur in describing Zimmerman. I don’t know that that the same can be said of Zimmerman about TM. Right?</p>
<p>we all see things based on our realities, but I find it offensive given the realities of this case that what you are coming up with is that the dead kid was the racist.</p>
<p>I probably didn’t write my point very well. I am not suggesting TM as a racist at all. I don’t think he acted out of race, I think race was a topic on his mind (because of his use of racial terms) but did not govern his actions that night. Noticing race or being sensitive to differences in race does not necessarily make you a racist.</p>
<p>Wow, that was your takeaway? I never said the kid was a racist. And I never said Zimmerman wasn’t. I’m not sure what it was I said that was offensive. You’re obviously very entrenched in your view of this whole thing, much more so than I am. I won’t bother you further with my perspective.</p>
<p>Trayvon Martin was an African-American youth in a state that is racially charged even on the best days (yes, even in Miami, where he was from). He would know what it was like to be treated as “less than” whites or Latinos, because that is the social order in South Florida. Sanford is more like the South and has a history of racism including KKK activity. It’s no surprise that a kid who grew up in Miami and was visiting relatives in Sanford would be on edge, especially when some [insert description here] was pursuing him for no apparent reason.</p>
<p>what I found offensive is that you didn’t note that TM’s reported comment, was made “under duress” of being stalked. what would you expect him to say, a white gentleman was following me?</p>
<p>GZ used the slur “f—in punks” about a young black male. WHY? he generalized and projected assumptions onto a young man who actually did belong in the community. He was wrong about his assumption and as Busdriver said, this was about fear. His fear, poor judgment and poor impulse control (hx of violence) created the tragic ending.</p>
<p>here’s an example of how this plays out. as I mentioned I live in a gated community much like GZ’s. I had a black friend visiting me and we went walking through my community walking my dog. I walk my dog 3 x a day every day. Two separate neighbors said hello to me and asked if I was new to the neighborhood. Asked who I was. HUH? I have lived here 15 yrs. and I have seen these two particular neighbors every day and they never say hello or note my presence, which is fine. Why did they notice and approach me that day? This is a reality. You can deny it all you want, but it is true. I have another black friend who talks about how whenever he goes shopping in Target or similar stores he is followed. When you are treated like an outsider in your own country, you don’t really have much choice but to recognize that the world sees YOU through the prism of race.</p>
<p>The key witness for the prosecution was definitely Selma Mora. She testified that there were two people, one on top of the other, and the person on TOP told her to call police. Zimmerman has previously said that he was on the bottom. This was after she said she saw the person on top was wearing what appeared to be a jacket with “Reds and Blacks”. Ironically, she didn’t know there was gunfire, otherwise she would not have scurried out to her porch to see what was going on. IF she had known the sound she heard was a gun, she would never have gone outside and her key testimony would never have unfolded.</p>
<p>Critiquing the 18 year old witness for answering pervert when the ideation was about her culture must be based on reading the transcript and not hearing much of her testimony. She had a (bad) habit of answering before the atty finished the whole question. On multiple occasions she did this. It was clear when you see the actual tape that when he asked the question, she again jumped the gun and responded to what she assumed he was asking. </p>
<p>To me one of the key pieces if evidence is not the witness but the body. If GZ’s head was being pummeled on the concrete by TM why was TM’s body found so far from concrete? If I were a juror that question would be key to me.</p>
<p>I think that a lot what has been discussed here in this post is personal opinions and that will do little to help the prosecution’s case (unless a juror is bias towards GZ). They need more evident to disprove self-defense. I hope that this will come in the forensics report ( if they did not botched it). At the end of the day, the judge will instruct the jury that the burden of proof lays on the prosecution and not on the defense. To convict someone “beyond a reasonable doubt” is hard, specially without concrete evidence and witnesses. The interpretation of the Stand your Ground law and the forensic analysis of the body for signs of struggle will be ,with in my opinion ,decisive points of this trial.</p>
<p>“If I were a juror that question would be key to me.”</p>
<p>Just catching up on last night’s posts. This one stuck out for me. So many verdicts seem to come down to which issues resonate with jurors. My formal training was scientific, so I’m inclined to go with forensics and the like. Raising my kids forced me to develop behavioral assessment techniques. Depending on which pieces of “evidence” one chooses, this case is either a slam dunk conviction … or a slam dunk acquittal.</p>
<p>So how is the Jury appear reacting to all this. Or are they out of camera range?</p>
<p>No Hayden, not in this case. I actually saw the clip of the atty asking what culture she was from and saw/heard her response, “pervert”. I have not read any transcripts. </p>
<p>(re post 467) TM could have said “a man”, “a guy”, “a weird guy”, “some dude”, any number of things. Even if he thought race was important, and believed GZ to be all Caucasian, he still could have said “some white guy”, or “some crazy white dude”. There are many easy alternatives between calling someone a gentleman, and calling someone a creepy ass [racial slur].</p>
<p>^ And GZ might have chosen something less pejorative too. What does EITHER’s choice of descriptors have to do with whether GZ is guilty or not?</p>
<p>(Or in plain words, if TM has said “some gentleman” instead of “C-A-Cracker” would that make GZ guilty of murder? Nuancing the victim is a time-honored defense technique … but is it appropriate here?)</p>
<p>Maybe the reason the defense attorney had Selma Mora do the re-enactment was to demonstrate and reinforce that there was a several second gap between time Mora heard gunshot in her kitchen when she was making coffee and when she finally got outside by her porch to see GZ and TM on ground with GZ on top. GZ could have changed positions in the few seconds between gunshot sound and Mora actually seeing them from her porch?</p>
You don’t have to agree. That’s perfectly fine. I’m not interested in changing minds. I happen to think the transcript will be a mess (again, based on the reports of problems had by the court reporters) and that could pose problems with comprehension of what this witness actually meant.</p>
<p>in re NH33, post 473, “What does EITHER’s choice of descriptors have to do with whether GZ is guilty or not?” </p>
<p>I don’t know. I had no comment on what difference it makes. I was merely responding to the broad question asked by lindz in post 467.
Why don’t you ask lindz what difference it makes, it was lindz that posed the question…</p>
<p>I see that overnight there has been “hung jury” discussions. For those new to the thread, go read post #235. In Florida when the prosecution has to disprove self defense, 67% of all defendants have acquittal/dismissals entered. That 2 out of 3 stat includes a rate of 59% acquittal/dismissal when the defendant has a prior arrest and rate of 45% acquittal/dismissal where the defendant had three or more arrests.</p>
<p>I agree with the concern about how the record will read if the jurors ask to review it.</p>
<p>I was involved in an motion for reconsideration of a default judgment where the sole testimony concerning damages was the answer “yes” to the question “is it not a fact that that the fair market value of the building at the time it was destroyed by the defendant was $_____?”</p>
<p>Cold record. Answer could mean “yes, it was not a fact.” Reversed by the trial court on motion for reconsideration based on no evidence of fmv.</p>
<p>Beyond the confusion, the jurors now know that for this witness there is something (mom’s feelings/foreign culture?) more important to the witness than her oath to tell the “whole truth.” Same could be said for GZ. I do not recall that any of GZ’s statements were under oath. Am I wrong? I recall he passed the voice stress analysis “test” the police administered the night of the shooting.</p>
<p>Have other posters served on juries? I ask because I have and the idea that the selection process resulted in jurors who had no knowledge of things like the stress test seems unwarranted.</p>
<p>I do not envy the prosecution having to work with the fact that a “key” witness who claims now to have crucial information from the very minutes leading up to the shooting (including the sound of a blow she thinks was landed on her dear friend) did not come forth when the entire community and US media was going nuts over who did what that night. Especially when you add that to not relating the entire content of the events in the deposition and to the demeanor (and change?) at trial.</p>
<p>All the KKK stuff? Aren’t 2 jurors recent transplants to the South? Reading CC it sometimes appears that non-Southerners (especially those born in the early 1980s and later) don’t have a visceral grasp of that. I would guess that if a juror “got” the KKK life experience, they know what “cracker” means.</p>
<p>It may turn out that GZ got a jury of his peers, not the peers of TM. Juror selection may be key.</p>
<p>I’m having a difficult time understanding how the name he called a guy who was stalking him at night on the street had anything to do with whether or not an unarmed young man was shot in the chest at close range. I don’t think I could’ve been on this jury. I really can’t get to self-defense in any plausable way on this one.</p>