Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

PlanetaryOrbit

(155 posts)
Tue Oct 7, 2014, 02:44 PM Oct 2014

Help me understand something about the Trayvon Martin case.

Since things have settled down, I wanted to revisit an old issue:


I'm no legal expert, but it seems to me the Trayvon Martin case - which I find a very confusing case - was essentially, "Blame the law, don't blame the jury," am I right? That is to say, under the parameters of the law, the jury didn't really have much choice but to acquit Zimmerman?


If so, then why did many people get angry at the jury instead of the law? Would convicting Zimmerman have actually been the right choice, under the parameters of the situation? Seems to me the jury had little choice but to acquit.


It's immensely confusing.


51 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Help me understand something about the Trayvon Martin case. (Original Post) PlanetaryOrbit Oct 2014 OP
I blame both. The jury got it wrong. The law is stupid. Warren Stupidity Oct 2014 #1
What exactly did the jury do wrong? That's my question. PlanetaryOrbit Oct 2014 #5
there is resonable doubt and unreasonable doubt. hollysmom Oct 2014 #10
The case wasn't being presented as SYG, but the judge gave SYG instructions anyway Dont call me Shirley Oct 2014 #23
Personally, I blame the prosecutors. JaneyVee Oct 2014 #2
Me too. phil89 Oct 2014 #15
Me too. phil89 Oct 2014 #15
This message was self-deleted by its author phil89 Oct 2014 #15
I don't know if the prosecutors are minimally competent .... etherealtruth Oct 2014 #32
The jury shouldn't have considered mainstreetonce Oct 2014 #3
+1 in a nutshell that's it -- Serino: That's not fear. You know what I mean? KurtNYC Oct 2014 #18
The defense did not use SYG as part of the case. Jenoch Oct 2014 #19
SYG was part of the jury's instructions mainstreetonce Oct 2014 #25
You are wrong. Jenoch Oct 2014 #35
I blame the media and the law and the jurors. bravenak Oct 2014 #4
The jury has the power of jury nullification, I think, just like OJ's jury had. nt valerief Oct 2014 #6
He didn't plead SYG. He pled self-defense. Blame the jury. msanthrope Oct 2014 #7
it's a disgrace Skittles Oct 2014 #8
Well said! nt raccoon Oct 2014 #50
Zimmerman did NOT use Stand Your Ground for defense. DesMoinesDem Oct 2014 #9
SYG is part of self defense in Florida and part of jury instructions whether it is a defense or not. flamin lib Oct 2014 #12
I saw police who didn't want to charge, prosecutors who didn't want to try and a jury that couldn't flamin lib Oct 2014 #11
A jury can vote however they wish. ZombieHorde Oct 2014 #13
Judges jury instructions played a part. antiquie Oct 2014 #14
the jury was racist JI7 Oct 2014 #20
Wasn't there an African-American juror? PlanetaryOrbit Oct 2014 #22
Nope JustAnotherGen Oct 2014 #27
why would you assume that blacks can't be racist against other blacks? CreekDog Oct 2014 #31
I take solace in the fact that Zimmerman is now legally the greatest coward in the history of man. ieoeja Oct 2014 #21
THANK YOU Skittles Oct 2014 #26
When you have prosecution witnesses supporting Zimmerman's story hack89 Oct 2014 #24
I watched the trial as it occurred 40 miles or so away DrDan Oct 2014 #28
Self-defense YarnAddict Oct 2014 #29
all we have to consider is if Trayvon was White and a Black man had shot him JI7 Oct 2014 #30
Ok...I'll bite Blue_Tires Oct 2014 #33
What do you need my demographic info for? PlanetaryOrbit Oct 2014 #43
I don't need it Blue_Tires Oct 2014 #47
I'm not white. PlanetaryOrbit Oct 2014 #51
When a seemingly credible witness states that Trayvon Martin was on top of Zimmerman, Nye Bevan Oct 2014 #34
Of course that witness wouldn't lie in order to protect a neighbor Blue_Tires Oct 2014 #36
I think very, very few people would risk going to prison for perjury Nye Bevan Oct 2014 #37
You're saying people have never lied on the stand to protect a friend? Blue_Tires Oct 2014 #39
No, but I would think it is very rare, Nye Bevan Oct 2014 #41
Sometimes it's just a matter Blue_Tires Oct 2014 #48
Possibly your theory is true. Nye Bevan Oct 2014 #49
So why did the prosecution put him on the stand? hack89 Oct 2014 #38
The prosecution was probably on the take Blue_Tires Oct 2014 #40
It was a gun problem & an evidence problem. DirkGently Oct 2014 #42
With UK-style gun control, the night would have likely ended with both parties going to the ER, Nye Bevan Oct 2014 #44
I think that as well. Instead we patted DirkGently Oct 2014 #46
A factual, well explained response. PlanetaryOrbit Oct 2014 #45

PlanetaryOrbit

(155 posts)
5. What exactly did the jury do wrong? That's my question.
Tue Oct 7, 2014, 02:48 PM
Oct 2014

Was it the part about the evidence and guilt beyond reasonable doubt?

hollysmom

(5,946 posts)
10. there is resonable doubt and unreasonable doubt.
Tue Oct 7, 2014, 02:55 PM
Oct 2014

I can't really talk, I served on a jury where I knew the guy was guilty, just knew it, and the lawyer was prosecuting her first case and also was no bright light, worst presentation ever, no follow up questions, no objections to pure theatrics - the defense was a drama king, and seemed to exaggerate, i.e. lie, to the extremes. we were denied by the judge the ability of looking at the transcript (he said this is a simple case, we should have listened).... and so it went, we had to let him go because the evidence was shown was a he said she said, even though there were half a dozen people there, we were only provided with the one witness - and this was for armed robbery. The excuse was that he was kidding he was not robbing them, because that is a funny joke, but he did not know any of these people. but that was not even challenged by the prosecutor. and so and so on. We all knew he was guilty, but we all voted to let him go. Hated it.

Dont call me Shirley

(10,998 posts)
23. The case wasn't being presented as SYG, but the judge gave SYG instructions anyway
Tue Oct 7, 2014, 04:16 PM
Oct 2014

to the jury. The prosecutor clearly was not trying to win the case.

 

phil89

(1,043 posts)
15. Me too.
Tue Oct 7, 2014, 02:58 PM
Oct 2014

when the prosecution puts up witnesses who confirm the defense version of events... I don't know what othe option the jury had

 

phil89

(1,043 posts)
15. Me too.
Tue Oct 7, 2014, 02:58 PM
Oct 2014

when the prosecution puts up witnesses who confirm the defense version of events... I don't know what othe option the jury had

Response to JaneyVee (Reply #2)

etherealtruth

(22,165 posts)
32. I don't know if the prosecutors are minimally competent ....
Tue Oct 7, 2014, 08:00 PM
Oct 2014

... but I sure know they presented the case as if they were

KurtNYC

(14,549 posts)
18. +1 in a nutshell that's it -- Serino: That's not fear. You know what I mean?
Tue Oct 7, 2014, 03:04 PM
Oct 2014

Serino, the police investigator nailed Zimmerman to the floor over his BS story but the case wasn't presented to the jury this way:

the tape plays - Zim exits the SUV to chase TM

Serino: OK, so you basically jumped out of the car to see where he was going?
Zimmerman: Yes, sir.
Serino: OK. That’s not fear. You know what I mean?
Zimmerman: Yes, sir.
Serino: That’s one of the problems I have with the whole thing, or I’m gonna have. I mean, I don’t have any problems at all, it’s just that… it’s gonna be a problem.



More excerpts:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023147402
 

bravenak

(34,648 posts)
4. I blame the media and the law and the jurors.
Tue Oct 7, 2014, 02:47 PM
Oct 2014

And the people who donated money. And now look at him.... He's exactly what I thought he was.

Skittles

(153,113 posts)
8. it's a disgrace
Tue Oct 7, 2014, 02:50 PM
Oct 2014

the fact is Trayvon would be alive today if he had not encountered an armed lunatic with a record for being a thug, who was out LOOKING FOR TROUBLE

TRAYVON was the one who was standing his ground and he was EXECUTED for it

 

DesMoinesDem

(1,569 posts)
9. Zimmerman did NOT use Stand Your Ground for defense.
Tue Oct 7, 2014, 02:54 PM
Oct 2014

The talking heads on TV just talked on and on about it to give people another thing to be outraged about.

flamin lib

(14,559 posts)
11. I saw police who didn't want to charge, prosecutors who didn't want to try and a jury that couldn't
Tue Oct 7, 2014, 02:55 PM
Oct 2014

Find their ass with both hands being lead by the wife of a lawyer who was biased and bigoted.

ZombieHorde

(29,047 posts)
13. A jury can vote however they wish.
Tue Oct 7, 2014, 02:57 PM
Oct 2014

I didn't follow the trial, so I don't know what the jury was exposed to, so I don't judge them. That said, Zimmerman is a creepy fucker, in my opinion.

 

antiquie

(4,299 posts)
14. Judges jury instructions played a part.
Tue Oct 7, 2014, 02:58 PM
Oct 2014
Jurors also didn’t have all the court instructions for self-defense cases. The judge withheld instructions that the jurors could have used to determine that Zimmerman was an “initial aggressor,” a finding that could have denied him a self-defense defense. But the defense successfully argued — and the state did not forcefully protest — that prosecutors failed to show how Zimmerman was an aggressor.

“Losing the initial aggressor instruction may have been the moment the state lost its case,” criminal-law professor Alafair Burke wrote in the Huffington Post.

more

JI7

(89,240 posts)
20. the jury was racist
Tue Oct 7, 2014, 03:09 PM
Oct 2014

Defense made sure to get that type. State tried to get that one racist off but wasn't able to.

If trayvon was white it would have been an easy conviction.

CreekDog

(46,192 posts)
31. why would you assume that blacks can't be racist against other blacks?
Tue Oct 7, 2014, 07:57 PM
Oct 2014

in a country where racism against blacks is the norm?

 

ieoeja

(9,748 posts)
21. I take solace in the fact that Zimmerman is now legally the greatest coward in the history of man.
Tue Oct 7, 2014, 03:32 PM
Oct 2014

Someone was heard begging in a tearful voice, "oh, god, please don't kill me." There are two possibilities:

1. Trayvon was begging not to be killed after Zimmerman pulled his gun. Of course, that would mean pre-meditation murder 1 for Z.

2. An armed Zimmerman was begging not to be killed by the unarmed Trayvon. That would make Z the greatest coward in history.


I happen to think #2 is so ridiculous that it can not possibly be true. But that is what the jury decided. So Z's place in history has been recorded.


hack89

(39,171 posts)
24. When you have prosecution witnesses supporting Zimmerman's story
Tue Oct 7, 2014, 04:21 PM
Oct 2014

then it is very likely that he was not going to be found guilty.

It was always going to be a tough case to try because there were no witnesses to the actual shooting. Without hard evidence creating reasonable doubt was not going to be hard - remember that trials are skewed towards the defendant.

DrDan

(20,411 posts)
28. I watched the trial as it occurred 40 miles or so away
Tue Oct 7, 2014, 06:14 PM
Oct 2014

I can fully understand the reasonable doubt from the jury. Every one of the state's witnesses was, in the end, supportive if the defense's case. Not so in reverse. No surprise here reasonable doubt was in evidence.

 

YarnAddict

(1,850 posts)
29. Self-defense
Tue Oct 7, 2014, 06:20 PM
Oct 2014

Apparently the jury believed that GZ was in fear for his life, and deadly force was his only choice to save himself.

Who knows what GZ was thinking? No one can know what anyone else is thinking, so reasonable doubt.

JI7

(89,240 posts)
30. all we have to consider is if Trayvon was White and a Black man had shot him
Tue Oct 7, 2014, 07:13 PM
Oct 2014

and all the other evidence was the same what would the jury have done ? anyone really think they would have let a black man go free with that evidence ?

would "armed with the sidewalk" be taken seriously ?

Blue_Tires

(55,445 posts)
33. Ok...I'll bite
Tue Oct 7, 2014, 09:23 PM
Oct 2014

Exactly what do you find "immensely confusing"?

And why have you not looked into the thousands of past DU threads on the topic?

and so I can "understand" something, please tell me your basic demographic info...

Blue_Tires

(55,445 posts)
47. I don't need it
Wed Oct 8, 2014, 04:01 PM
Oct 2014

I just like knowing who I'm talking to, just so I can properly stage my argument....

And while my unofficial statistics are of course unscientific, 100% of the people I've met who claim to not "understand" this case or don't believe racial profiling exists are white...

Nye Bevan

(25,406 posts)
34. When a seemingly credible witness states that Trayvon Martin was on top of Zimmerman,
Tue Oct 7, 2014, 09:44 PM
Oct 2014

"pounding him MMA style", one can see why the jury could conclude that they could not convict Zimmerman of murder beyond a reasonable doubt.

http://www.hlntv.com/article/2013/06/28/questions-still-loom-over-george-zimmerman-trial

Blue_Tires

(55,445 posts)
36. Of course that witness wouldn't lie in order to protect a neighbor
Wed Oct 8, 2014, 10:18 AM
Oct 2014


And then I should mention the two jurors who admitted to the media that their minds were already made up to acquit before the trial even started...

People believe the narrative they want to believe...Things like truth and fact had nothing to do with Zimmerman's acquittal, but playing to latent prejudices plus a shockingly weak prosecution did...

But this isn't something I'm in the mood to tear the scab off of for the hundredth time, and I suspect the OP is taking a piss with this little hand grenade of a thread, so this will be my only post on the topic...

Nye Bevan

(25,406 posts)
37. I think very, very few people would risk going to prison for perjury
Wed Oct 8, 2014, 10:35 AM
Oct 2014

by lying about something one of their neighbors did.

Blue_Tires

(55,445 posts)
39. You're saying people have never lied on the stand to protect a friend?
Wed Oct 8, 2014, 01:18 PM
Oct 2014

Especially when the only person to counter the official story is dead?

Nye Bevan

(25,406 posts)
41. No, but I would think it is very rare,
Wed Oct 8, 2014, 01:45 PM
Oct 2014

especially in a case like this one where they were only neighbors as opposed to friends. As a juror, I would not find it credible that this witness would risk a perjury conviction to save Zimmerman. Yes, Trayvon was dead, but there were other witnesses, and for all he knew when he was giving his eyewitness account to the cops, there may well have been CCTV footage.

Blue_Tires

(55,445 posts)
48. Sometimes it's just a matter
Wed Oct 8, 2014, 04:28 PM
Oct 2014

of a juror believing Zim's freedom was worth more than some dead black teenager nobody cared about and got what was coming to him...

And sometimes it's just a matter of neighbors getting together and making sure they all "saw" the same thing, which was especially easy since the cops didn't get any definitive accounts from neighbors that first night, and it took the fucking cops 3 weeks (and national media pressure) to even pretend to start "investigating" the case, which was plenty of time...

Nye Bevan

(25,406 posts)
49. Possibly your theory is true.
Wed Oct 8, 2014, 04:34 PM
Oct 2014

But a possible theory of guilt is not equivalent to proof of murder beyond a reasonable doubt, which is what was needed for conviction.

hack89

(39,171 posts)
38. So why did the prosecution put him on the stand?
Wed Oct 8, 2014, 10:38 AM
Oct 2014

the state never said after his testimony that he had lied to them as to what he saw.

The prosecution was inept.

Blue_Tires

(55,445 posts)
40. The prosecution was probably on the take
Wed Oct 8, 2014, 01:20 PM
Oct 2014

or just protecting their bosom buddies on the police force...

The lives of black folks have always been expendable in this nation's long history...

DirkGently

(12,151 posts)
42. It was a gun problem & an evidence problem.
Wed Oct 8, 2014, 01:48 PM
Oct 2014

The public outrage and presumptions of guilt on the part of Zimmerman came from the underlying circumstances:

Z got out of his car, with a gun, and confronted Martin because he suspected him of some wrongdoing, which many presume was based in some part on Martin's race or his dress. If I recall correctly, it came to light that there had been break-ins in the neighborhood, and Z believed black youths had been seen. He apparently thought he had stumbled on "those people."

So the end result -- Martin's death, was completely avoidable but for Z's assumptions and presumptions, and his notion that he should carry a weapon and go around guarding his neighborhood from anyone he felt didn't belong.

The problem with convicting Zimmerman in front of most any jury in most most any state, was that

1) *Ordinary self defense laws* permit the use of deadly force based on a reasonable fear of imminent great bodily harm, AND

2) No one, and no clear forensic evidence, could contradict Z's story that Martin knocked him down and commenced beating him senseless. Z. also told police Martin threatened to kill him.

The way gun laws work, almost everywhere, is that you can get a license and carry one. The way self-defense laws work, almost everywhere, is that if you are, say, pinned down and believe you are about to be subject to severe injury or death, you can respond with deadly force. There is not a lot of law that allows for who "instigated" things or caused the initial problem to begin with. Once someone is in "reasonable fear" of being greatly hurt, they can use deadly force.

"Stand Your Ground" was mentioned in the jury instructions, but was not raised by Z, nor did any of the facts bear on that law. If Z was pinned and unable to flee as he said, the generic self-defense laws in effect anywhere would allow him to defend his life with a gun. "Stand Your Ground" only takes away the obligation to flee if you can safely do so. "I was pinned to the ground" eliminates applicability of that law entirely.

My personal take is that the biggest problem is allowing people to walk around with weapons, with no special responsibility to avoid *putting themselves* in a situation where they might then claim the need for deadly self defense. I think it is entirely possible Martin was beating Z up after Z's creepy stalking behavior. But I don't think he was going to kill him via punches to the face. If there was a legal reason for Z's defense to lose, in my opinion it was in the question of whether he was ever in "reasonable fear" of losing his life or suffering great bodily harm. He was receiving an ass beating, not a murdering.

The other problem with carrying guns is -- assuming again for a moment Z's story was true -- once the gun "appears," someone is likely to get shot. Z claimed Martin saw the gun in the shoulder holster and grabbed for it.

But once it was in view, didn't they both HAVE to grab for it? You can't have a gun sitting there in the middle of a fight and simply let it be. A deadly weapon automatically escalates any physical conflict into life and death.

Of course, because of the lack of evidence, it's possible Z was even worse than he appears, and executed Martin for no reason. But absent that evidence, a jury had no business making such an assumption, no matter how much contempt they may have had for Zimmerman.

For what it's worth, I spoke to several attorneys casually about the case, and they felt the same regarding the inapplicability of SYG and the overall lack of evidence to refute Z's self-defense story.

So here we are. A person can a) carry a gun almost anywhere, and b) shoot anyone they somehow come to "fear," even if they instigated the situation. We couldn't have a better recipe for people who don't like or don't trust certain "types" of other people to end up killing them, in my opinion.

But it wasn't because "Floriduh," and it wasn't because the jury was racist, and it wasn't even the stupid, should-be-repealed Stand Your Ground nonsense. This is the law everywhere. If we don't like it, we ought to do something about it.

Nye Bevan

(25,406 posts)
44. With UK-style gun control, the night would have likely ended with both parties going to the ER,
Wed Oct 8, 2014, 02:02 PM
Oct 2014

getting patched up, and being sent home. Allowing racist wannabe-cops like Zimmerman to go strutting around with guns is a recipe for disaster.

DirkGently

(12,151 posts)
46. I think that as well. Instead we patted
Wed Oct 8, 2014, 02:23 PM
Oct 2014

Zimmerman on the head and told him to go on his way. He is a hero to the very worst of gun-as-self-defense afficionados -- those who imagine they can go and *seek out* trouble, secure in the notion that as soon as it doesn't go their way, they can employ their personal "superpower" -- a bullet.

It's exactly the kind of behavior a fearful, insecure person -- like a racist -- would find appealing.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Help me understand someth...