Zimmerman Juror Says He 'Got Away With Murder'

[Mach]

The police released him right away, so I don't think a very thorough investigation could have occurred. If he had been arrested (plenty of probable cause was present for an arrest), then the issue thoroughly investigated, and from there the prosecutor decided to not press charges, I'd have been OK with that. That's not how it went, though.

The fact that he called 911 about it and stayed on the line with them, and he was neighborhood watch, and appeared beat up consistent with his description of events, don't see a lot of probable cause, personally, but OK. That's more than just "his word", that's independently verifiable evidence (911, injuries, potentially eye witnesses?) , consistent with the neighborhood watch story. When someone is killed I would hope the threshold for investigation is higher than say, a petty crime, though, obviously. But not so high that we start asking for witch hunts and punishing the person who was (potentially) the victim. I don't know where this one falls, just was curious, thanks.

I believe that Martin was justified in using lethal force against Zimmerman

Why would that have legal consequence for Zimmerman being justified in likewise defending himself? I would expect if TM had killed Zimmerman, he too may have not been convicted...which is not unreasonable. Right?

 

[Tucker Case]

The fact that he called 911 about it and stayed on the line with them, and he was neighborhood watch, and appeared beat up consistent with his description of events, don't see a lot of probable cause, personally, but OK. That's more than just "his word", that's independently verifiable evidence (911, injuries, potentially eye witnesses?) , consistent with the neighborhood watch story. When someone is killed I would hope the threshold for investigation is higher than say, a petty crime, though, obviously. But not so high that we start asking for witch hunts and punishing the person who was (potentially) the victim. I don't know where this one falls, just was curious, thanks.

Ah, but in his 911 call he already had "convicted" the kid of committing a crime and sounded like he was hell-bent on preventing one of "those assholes" form getting away again (purely based on his tone of voice and inflections). That's more than enough to cast doubt on his claims. When there's any doubt on a self-defense claim, it's a trial issue, not something the cops unilaterally decide.

 

[Black Dog]

You've already admitted you have arbitrarily rejected evidence, so I'm not really sure why you keep trying to pretend I don't know the evidence. it's kind of odd, actually.

My perosnal feelings have nothing to do with my positions. :shrug:

No I didn't. I rejected Dee Dee's testimony for being caught in too many lies. Nothing even remotely arbitrary about that. Credibility is important.

As for your feelings, well I am just going by your posts.

Then why have you continually tried to pretend otherwise in this debate?

Here's an idea... Why don't you leave my thoughts together and stop responding to each one out of context.

Key part in bold. The burden of proof is a trial issue, not a cop issue.

See note above.

It is a "cop" issue initially. DA's don't work the street.

I don't feel that justice was served, but for a very different reason than what you have been assuming. I don't necessarily disagree with the verdict that was rendered in the trial. Given the prosecutions case against Zimmerman, that verdict was essentially a given. Where I think justice wasn't served was in how the prosecution handled the case. I would have handled the case as I have described, and because of the logic I have presented, I believe that Martin was justified in using lethal force against Zimmerman. Since the approach I have outlined was not employed by the prosecution, we'll never know whether or not my case against Zimmerman would have yielded a conviction or not. So be it. But judging by the fact that the jurors appear to have agreed that Zimmerman had done something wrong, yet felt they couldn't support the prosecutions claims, I think my argument would have had a better chance at success than the one that was actually given did.

Again as I said based on everything your defence does not apply in any way. According to Martins actions as I have pointed out, no one... The prosecutor's, witnesses other than discredited Dee Dee thought Martin was scared. He had subdued Zimmerman and continued to beat him after he, not Martin was screaming for help. The evidence states clearly your fight or flight theory does not apply as Martin had almost 5 minutes to call police or flee. Instead he circled back (which in Florida is considered a wave of self defence) giving up in that moment any right to any kind of self defence as shown in the cases I submitted. We then have to take Zimmerman's words that Martin struck him in the nose knocking him to the ground. He would be considered culpable by coming back to confront Zimmerman.

That's why your repeated claims about the acquittal proving his innocence are irrelevant to the debate we are actually having. I am in disagreement with the prosecutions handling of the case. My position is about what the prosecution should have argued, not about what they did argue. I think the prosecution failed miserably.

And I will repeat that claim as it is true. They handled it as well as could be expected with no evidence. Your claim of self defence for Martin would not fly the moment he went back to confront Zimmerman. There is no evidence from witnesses or the 911 call that Zimmerman followed Martin but rather headed for his car.

 

[Tucker Case]

No I didn't. I rejected Dee Dee's testimony for being caught in too many lies. Nothing even remotely arbitrary about that. Credibility is important.

But you're rejecting the bits that are highly unlikely to be lies. Such as Martin calling Zimmerman a "creepy ass cracker" and whatnot. I get rejecting some of her testimony, but to me it should be limited to that which would be lies, not that which she would have been better off lying about.

As for your feelings, well I am just going by your posts.

That's simply not true. You are going off of your perceptions of people who think Zimmerman "got away with something". If you were addressing what I was actually saying, you wouldn't keep bringing up stuff that has nothing to do with what I'm saying.

Here's an idea... Why don't you leave my thoughts together and stop responding to each one out of context.

In what context could "absolutely" be anything but absolute agreement?

See note above.

It is a "cop" issue initially. DA's don't work the street.

Yes, and the cops knew hey had the shooter and let him go, essentially doing the DA's job for him.

Again as I said based on everything your defence does not apply in any way. According to Martins actions as I have pointed out, no one... The prosecutor's, witnesses other than discredited Dee Dee thought Martin was scared. He had subdued Zimmerman and continued to beat him after he, not Martin was screaming for help. The evidence states clearly your fight or flight theory does not apply as Martin had almost 5 minutes to call police or flee. Instead he circled back (which in Florida is considered a wave of self defence) giving up in that moment any right to any kind of self defence as shown in the cases I submitted. We then have to take Zimmerman's words that Martin struck him in the nose knocking him to the ground. He would be considered culpable by coming back to confront Zimmerman.

You are not looking at the entirety of evidence and you are compartmentalizing the circumstances. He ran (fear reaction), then Zimmerman followed him (limiting his flight options). Now here's where the thing gets interesting. After initially experiencing a flight reaction, Martin appears to have experienced a VERY common psychological response to "backing down" from something and he then returned to confront Zimmerman about his following him (perfectly legal, nad it's important to note that he asked Zimmerman why he was following him first, and again, that's Zimmerman's account of the event).

At that point, again according to Zimmerman, Zimmerman reached into his pocket and THAT was when Martin hit him. There's no doubt that Martin was having a fear reaction, and his flight response was changed to a fight response. There's no other logical explanation for Martin's actions.

Where the debate comes in is whether or not Martin's actions were justified. Justification is based on the entirety of the circumstances and whether or not Martin's belief that he was about ot become the victim of a forcible felony was a reasonable belief in those circumstances.

That's a point where disagreement can occur. Not whether or not he was having a fear reaction, because if there was no fear reaction, the entire event couldn't possibly have happened (martin would have casually continued home seemingly oblivious to Zimmerman had Zimmerman's behaviors not triggered a fear reaction).

Your claim of self defence for Martin would not fly the moment he went back to confront Zimmerman.

He went back to verbally confront Zimmerman (which was legally his right). Zimmerman's behavior DURING that confrontation is what triggered his right to self-defense. You keep ignoring that bit by trying to claim that he returned to confront Zimmerman as though THAT was the attempted self-defense.

There is no evidence from witnesses or the 911 call that Zimmerman followed Martin but rather headed for his car.

Actually, the location of the body in relationship to the car proves that Zimmerman was doing something other than returning to his car for those same five minutes. It would have taken less than 30 seconds for him to get from the location of Martin's body to his car but he continued to wander the area searching. The same evidence you argue against Martin must be applied to Zimmerman equally.

Of course, neither party was legally required to be anywhere else. Martin had a right to confront Zimmerman, and Zimmerman had a right to follow Martin. The thing that comes into play is who was the first to have a reasonable belief that they were about to become the victim of a forcible felony at the point of confrontation.

I believe that the first one to have that was Martin, based almost entirely on Zimmerman's own account of events, but supported by the witness testimony.

 

[Mach]

Ah, but in his 911 call he already had "convicted" the kid of committing a crime and sounded like he was hell-bent on preventing one of "those assholes" form getting away again (purely based on his tone of voice and inflections). That's more than enough to cast doubt on his claims. When there's any doubt on a self-defense claim, it's a trial issue, not something the cops unilaterally decide.

Thinking someone may have stolen something means he was going to SHOOT them? I think that's extreme personally. Yet if you'd been the cop, and game to the conclusion that it was appropriate to arrest him, in reality that too may have been OK. Both may be acceptable choices IMO, each person has a different set of, and perspective on, facts. Do you accept that there is a range of acceptable choices the cop may have made in that position, that may result in different outcomes but both may be acceptable in pursuit of justice? I think I see this all the time in managing. Once I delegate something, if I look only at the outcome it's not necessarily appropriate in judging their decision as being good or bad (yes results matter, but in a no win scenario punishment may not be productive). Nor is judging their decision as wrong based on the fact that I'd have chosen otherwise. Others have their own way of doing things, and within some reasonable bounds, they are granted that authority to act. That's kind of the point of delegation. As a society we delegate these dramatic, profound roles to others, and sure we may have made other choices if we choose to armchair quarterback it, or micromanage, but it's not necessarily appropriate.

I think there is a stronger argument to make that since both TM or Zimmerman could have pleaded self defense in killing the other, and been justified, that there is a danger there of someone abusing that *regardless of probable cause in that specific case*. Erring on the side of checking this a little deeper than just on the scene, may be justifiable based on that IMO. If someone is going to abuse self defense laws to commit murder and get away with it, I would think some of them would ensure there was no probable cause, but checking them out a little further might help. Don't know, it all costs taxpayers sadly, and is tragic either way.

 

[Tucker Case]

Thinking someone may have stolen something means he was going to SHOOT them?

No, but ascribing guilt to a person and then expressing distress over a perceived lack of justice in previous instances coupled with the fact that he actually DID shoot someone casts doubt on to his story that it was purely self-defense.

He didn't think Martin MAY HAVE stole something, he assumed that Martin was actually Guilty of committing a crime and that he was going to "get away". That's a big difference from merely being suspicious.

 

[Mach]

No, but ascribing guilt to a person and then expressing distress over a perceived lack of justice in previous instances coupled with the fact that he actually DID shoot someone casts doubt on to his story that it was purely self-defense.
He didn't think Martin MAY HAVE stole something, he assumed that Martin was actually Guilty of committing a crime and that he was going to "get away". That's a big difference from merely being suspicious.

I can see your point. I just don't think it's reasonable to conclude he would have been on the 911 call all the while, and would have thought shooting someone guilty of some break in previously, was justice. But again, I'm OK with both decisions as being justified, and as a result would consider in either case, justice being served. You want to restrict it to your specific case as being the only appropriate choice (when only those two are being discussed).

Also, on why prosecution did what it did, consider that the prosecution may have backed off certain avenues of attack because if they had, it may have opened them up to similar examination of TM, and they may have made a calculated choice that it would be more damaging to take that route (given what they knew was available about TM), rather than pursue it. From our perspective it can look like they missed an opportunity. From their perspective, having more information, they may have known it would have benefited Zimmerman more.

 

[Tucker Case]

I can see your point. I just don't think it's reasonable to conclude he would have been on the 911 call all the while, and would have thought shooting someone guilty of some break in previously, was justice. But again, I'm OK with both decisions as being justified, and as a result would consider in either case, justice being served. You want to restrict it to your specific case as being the only appropriate choice (when only those two are being discussed).

I'm not saying that he thought shooting Martin was justice, I'm saying his comments and expressed emotion in the 911 call is enough to question his story of how the event went down (as in who initiated contact).

It's not at all unreasonable to conclude that Zimmerman, in an obviously agitated emotional state, may have initiated the aggression and might be lying to the police about the order of events. That's more than enough for an arrest to be made. There wasn't enough information at that time to determine a total lack of culpability, though.

Also, on why prosecution did what it did, consider that the prosecution may have backed off certain avenues of attack because if they had, it may have opened them up to similar examination of TM, and they may have made a calculated choice that it would be more damaging to take that route (given what they knew was available about TM), rather than pursue it. From our perspective it can look like they missed an opportunity. From their perspective, having more information, they may have known it would have benefited Zimmerman more.

So you think they withheld evidence which supported Zimmerman?

 

[rhinefire]

There was never a case for murder. It came only after all the race baiters claimed foul. As a result justice told them to go back home and shut up.

 

[Caine]

They failed to prove their case.



They took the shooter's word for it, thus bypassing the justice system.

They took the shooter's word for it because they had nothing to DISPROVE the shooters word. All of their evidence was aligned WITH the "shooter's" word.

Making claims like.... "They just took his word for it." are stupid because they, again, show a complete lack of understanding that the facts of the case support the narrative that George Zimmerman gave of the case.


Now, you can continue with your "What If's" more "Theories" and other minor inconsistencies that attempt to make a mountain out of a molehill.

 

[Caine]

Nonsense. I am of the belief that an affirmative defense, such as insanity or self-defense, is a trial defense. I also believe that the police should not simply take the shooters word for it that a homicide was self-defense. I believe the justice system is set up for exactly that reason. The race of the participants means nothing to me. It's not sour grapes at all. :shrug:

So you believe that a person should be forced to attempt to prove their innocence with more than just their own word in any case where they defended themselves?


So I need to carry a camera on me running at all times or be subject to imprisonment should I defend myself?

That............ is............. ****ing............ retarded.

 

[Caine]

The police released him right away, so I don't think a very thorough investigation could have occurred. If he had been arrested (plenty of probable cause was present for an arrest), then the issue thoroughly investigated, and from there the prosecutor decided to not press charges, I'd have been OK with that. That's not how it went, though.

Even Probable Cause has to defeat a claim of self defense at that stage.

To have probable cause one has to have sufficient evidence to show that the individual being charged "More likely than not" committed the crime.

Which means they would have to show that there was significant doubt to his claim to self defense. Which at the time from the investigation, there was none.

You don't arrest someone and THEN investigate. You investigate and THEN arrest.

The freedom of the individual is of paramount importance.

 

[Tucker Case]

They took the shooter's word for it because they had nothing to DISPROVE the shooters word. All of their evidence was aligned WITH the "shooter's" word.

When did cops begin to need proof against a self-defense claim in order to make an arrest?

Hell, they can arrest someone who didn't even do anything without any actual evidence that they did, so when did this fancy new rule come into effect?

 

[Tucker Case]

So you believe that a person should be forced to attempt to prove their innocence with more than just their own word in any case where they defended themselves?

It's an affirmative defense, so they need to provide evidence of it, yes. That's how the court system works. Are you saying that you, as a police officer, have let people go simply because they told you they were innocent and you couldn't prove them wrong immediately?

 

[Tucker Case]

Even Probable Cause has to defeat a claim of self defense at that stage.

To have probable cause one has to have sufficient evidence to show that the individual being charged "More likely than not" committed the crime.

He admitted to killing Martin. It's not the cops job to determine whether or not his trial defense is accurate.

 

[Caine]

It's an affirmative defense, so they need to provide evidence of it, yes. That's how the court system works. Are you saying that you, as a police officer, have let people go simply because they told you they were innocent and you couldn't prove them wrong immediately?

Ummm.. Yes.
Was I supposed to arrest someone... on what charge? And with what probable cause?

You know... probable cause is that thing that you have to have in order to make an arrest of someone........

 

[Caine]

He admitted to killing Martin. It's not the cops job to determine whether or not his trial defense is accurate.

Self Defense is a justified killing. Justified killings are not murder, or a crime.

Just like running a red light while on a motorcycle after having stopped and waited for a time and no vehicles are coming is a justified violation of the law under N.C. General Statue because many motorcycles do not have the weight to trigger the sensor which changes the automatic lights.

Besides, I think you need to go and do some research on how the lead detective wanted to charge Zimmerman with manslaughter but (as might be standard practice in that area, any investigation leading to a charge that is a felony may need to be reviewed by the district attorney's office first, we used to have that in my county) prosecution of the case was declined by the District Attorney's office because there wasn't enough evidence to contradict his claim to self defense.

If a justified killing in self defense is not a crime, then it IS the job of law enforcement to ensure that only people who they have evidence to believe committed a crime are CHARGED with said crime.



Contrary to TV........Cops don't arrest first and investigate later.

 

[Caine]

When did cops begin to need proof against a self-defense claim in order to make an arrest?

Hell, they can arrest someone who didn't even do anything without any actual evidence that they did, so when did this fancy new rule come into effect?

That is TV bull****.

People can't be arrested without probable cause of a crime.

 

[Tucker Case]

Ummm.. Yes.
Was I supposed to arrest someone... on what charge? And with what probable cause?

You know... probable cause is that thing that you have to have in order to make an arrest of someone........

Murder. There was a corpse, you know. The guy DID admit to shooting the other person.

Are you really telling me that you are totally oblivious ot the fac tthat people can be held for 72 hours without charges being filed for EXACTLY this kind of situation? You must have been one ****ty cop if you didn't know that.

 

[Tucker Case]

That is TV bull****.

People can't be arrested without probable cause of a crime.

And a corpse and admition is not probable cause in your world. Got it.

 

[Tucker Case]

Self Defense is a justified killing.

Holy ****. This just fails at English.

Self defense is not a justified killing. It's a justification for killing. Justification. Do you know what that word means?

 

[CycloneWanderer]

And a corpse and admition is not probable cause in your world. Got it.

Holy ****. This just fails at English.

Self defense is not a justified killing. It's a justification for killing. Justification. Do you know what that word means?

Holy ****. This just fails at English. When you admit something, you do not make an "admition". Do you know how to spell that correctly?





Sorry, your back-to-back posts demanded this type of response.

 

[Tucker Case]

Holy ****. This just fails at English. When you admit something, you do not make an "admition". Do you know how to spell that correctly?

Fair enough. I spelled a word wrong. I should be shot.

However, that does not negate the fact that his failure at English is far more of an ass-rape than a mere spelling error.

 

[CycloneWanderer]

Fair enough. I spelled a word wrong. I should be shot.

However, that does not negate the fact that his failure at English is far more of an ass-rape than a mere spelling error.

Your egrigious use of metaphor gives me the distinct impression that you are quite the English dilettante.

 

[Caine]

Murder. There was a corpse, you know. The guy DID admit to shooting the other person.

Are you really telling me that you are totally oblivious ot the fac tthat people can be held for 72 hours without charges being filed for EXACTLY this kind of situation? You must have been one ****ty cop if you didn't know that.

Probably because that isn't allowed where I worked.