<p>Oh, damn.</p>
<p>It’s getting about toasty in here. <em>pulls on turtleneck</em></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think the President’s remarks were quite circumspect. I don’t believe that mentioning the color of the victim’s skin politicized the situation. It was an expression of empathy. With regard to the SYG laws, they do need to be investigated. Continuing to bring up the President’s comments is clearly part of an agenda that has more to do with taking shots at him than anything relating to this case.</p>
<p>MODERATOR’S NOTE
Please note that any further political discussions (President Obama, Jeb Bush, etc.) will result in the closing of this thread.</p>
<p>Chedva
Moderator</p>
<p>Wolverine, there were officers who thought GZ should be charged right away. He wasn’t. In a police department with a history of racial problems, this is concerning. For all we know GZ’s father exerted pressure to discourage his son from being charged. He had apparently done this in the past. </p>
<p>Also, as others have pointed out, we all bring personal bias and emotion to our reading of this situation. But that’s ok–none of us are on the jury.</p>
<p>Chedva - Thank you.</p>
<p>
The FOIA documents give more balance to this than might at first appear. Or more meddling on both sides. Take your pick!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Jurors may bring their personal biases into the courtroom. Wouldn’t it often be the case that a trial is won or lost during jury selection?</p>
<p>A ways back there was a brief discussion of the legal difference “self-defense” and “SYG.” I think that may be worth revisiting, given the repeated suggestions that the prosecution needs to “prove it wasn’t self-defense.” I believe that’s incorrect.</p>
<p>AS I understand it, “self-defense” is an affirmative claim, whereas “SYG” isn’t. If that interpretation is true, then the Prosecution doesn’t need to “prove it wasn’t self-defense.” An affirmative claim requires the defendant to convince the jury that’s what transpired.</p>
<p>(Criminal lawyers, feel free to chime in on this. My source is a lawyer, but not a criminal lawyer.)</p>
<p>If the defendant presents any evidence of self defense, the state must present evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, to overcome that claim. The defendant can present only a scintilla of evidence in order to use the defense. The defendant does not have to take the stand to present this evidence. It can be presented circumstantially.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sally…That was exactly my point. Nobody knows what sources brought pressure to bear in this case. Those firmly in the TM camp believe there was non-concern from the outset, with several claiming a police conspiracy…even to the point of them inflicting GZ’s wounds after the fact to “support the case” against TM. </p>
<p>Those in the GZ camp believe that outside pressures from the media, etc. led to the prosecutor’s office bringing a charge that many (including yourself) think may be an over-reach and may very well cost them the case.</p>
<p>Of course everyone has biases, but that doesn’t mean they’re incapable of looking at things with something approaching an open mind. If it wouldn’t take all day and then some, I’d ask you to re-read the postings in this thread and see how many times the words “obviously” and “clearly” have been used by posters on both sides of this tragedy. Given the totality of the circumstances, the inconclusiveness (thus far at least) and conflicting nature of the eyewitness testimony and forensic evidence, etc. I don’t see how anyone with an open mind can make any definitive determination at this point as to the outcome of this case.</p>
<p>A young man is dead, and he shouldn’t be. Emotion states that someone MUST pay for that, morals state that someone SHOULD pay for that, but the law and those that practice it will determine if someone DESERVES TO and WILL pay for it. Sometimes it’s just not the case, and I wish more people would let everything play out before demanding an outcome either way…or deciding from a LEGAL standpoint if it should be happening at all. Pre-judgments based on the history of the Sanford PD, GZ, and TM have all been brought up…and haven’t been proven to have any bearing on this case so far. Let it play out.</p>
<p>Pointing to the walls of the windowless courtroom, the prosecutor said to Lead Detective Sorino: “Right now it could be raining outside, right?”
“Yes, sir.”
“And that would be pure speculation on your part, would it not?”
“Yes, sir.”</p>
<p>This was during re-re-redirect this morning.</p>
<p>It could be our theme for this thread.</p>
<p>;)</p>
<p>White or black, walk into a bank lobby wearing a hoodie with head covered and your hands in front pocket…bank personnel will certainly look at you with suspicion. GZ probably reacted same manner that night.</p>
<p>Some banks I visit in Florida actually have signs posted at entrance doors: No hats, caps, sunglasses allowed in lobby.</p>
<p>This is a really interesting morning of testimony.</p>
<p>Both the prosecution and the defense have done a great job.</p>
<p>
Actually, following someone and shooting them is a crime unless it actually is self defense. And the only person who has stated that TM started the physical altercation is GZ - who had a motive to lie, and whose statement in various respects doesn’t seem to match physical evidence. What does match the evidence is that GZ followed an unarmed teenager and shot him to death. </p>
<p>The assumption stated by various posters here that GZ was having his head pounded into pavement, was sucker punched, etc., are all based on an uncritical acceptance of the words of a man who shot someone to death and has been evasive about his actions that day. (“I wasn’t following him. I just went in the same direction.” “I got out of my car to look for a street sign.”)</p>
<p>I’m sure much more will be said in the trial about the physical evidence. “He said, she said” cases are hard to predict; that’s why juries like physical evidence. “He said, he’s dead” cases are no easier.</p>
<p>"Rip is blaming the Martin killing on the breakdown of the African American family, which he puts at/or around the great depression. Well, he blames the Martin killing on the welfare state, though Trayvon does not appear to have been from a fatherless home OR on welfare. But, apparently, it’s still the cause. "</p>
<p>In case anyone is wondering, Sybrina Fulton is a government employee, I believe at the state level but I’m not absolutely sure about this. Tracy Martin is a long-distance truck driver. He frequently took Trayvon along on weekend trips.</p>
<p>I agree with others that Trayvon’s parents have been strong, dignified, and gracious through the worst ordeal imaginable. Trayvon’s older brother is also calm and serious. </p>
<p>Much of the information/photos/videos put out about Trayvon is false.</p>
<p>tv commentators I have heard so far have all confirmed cartera’s post, 1329. According to them, now that self-defense has been introduced, the explanation in post 1328 no longer applies.</p>
<p>I’ve seen at least a couple judge/lawyers on t.v. say they wouldn’t be surprised if the judge threw the case out because of lack of evidence. It’s disturbing to me that too many people either think it’s an easy murder charge or that it’s a textbook self defense case.</p>
<p>“What kind of home did Zimmerman come from?”</p>
<p>We can get some idea from his father’s recently published ebook, which is an over-the-top racist screed, and from his brother’s disgusting racist tweets. It is also known that George once turned the electricity off at his mother’s home and locked the box. These are all established. </p>
<p>The charges by George’s cousin about him and his family I do not consider established, but they have been made.</p>
<p>Has everyone seen how Rachel Jentel deleted many twitter posts about drinking, partying, getting high before the case? Not that it swings the case.</p>
<p>Also, I saw something a few days ago that said TM’s parent were trying to purchase rights to his name.</p>
<p>Also, there was an AP short piece in the Dallas Morning News yesterday. Apparently across the country, many states have their laws take effect on July 1st. It mentioned that the substantial majority of the states that had enacted laws related to guns had increased access and/or enlarged where they could be carried. Eighteen states were in the increased access/enlarged carry location camp.</p>
<p>IMO the effort years ago to “get tough on crime” started a mind set that it is dangerous “out there.”</p>