Jimmy Carter: Jury made ‘right decision’
Source: The Hill
Former President Jimmy Carter said Tuesday that the Florida jury which acquitted George Zimmerman of second degree murder and manslaughter charges in the shooting death of teenager Trayvon Martin made the “right decision.”
"I think the jury made the right decision based on the evidence presented because the prosecution inadvertently set the standard so high that the jury had to be convinced that it was a deliberate act by Zimmerman and that he was not defending himself and so forth," Carter said Tuesday in an interview with Atlanta TV station WXIA. "It's not a moral question, it was legal question and the American law requires that the jury listens to the evidence presented."
The jury verdict on Saturday exonerating Zimmerman who shot Martin, an unarmed black teenager after a confrontation in February of 2012 sparked nationwide protests.
The Justice Department has also begun reviewing the case to decide whether to press civil rights charges against Zimmerman.
Read more: http://thehill.com/video/in-the-news/311581-jimmy-carter-says-jury-made-right-decision-in-zimmerman-trial
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
SHRED
(28,136 posts)Response to SHRED (Reply #1)
onehandle This message was self-deleted by its author.
hlthe2b
(113,971 posts)that left out the most important part of Ziimmerman's instigating actions that precipitated whatever followed and the portion of the law that addresses that (i.e., the responsibility to retreat), the result was a foregone conclusion.
That judge should be really ashamed that she allowed herself to be bullied by the defense with that instruction. I think she was well-meaning but succumbed to pressure and exhaustion.
Nonetheless, I do believe there was adequate evidence to have convicted Zimmerman, had this been handled better.
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)
DallasNE
(8,008 posts)And that set the stage for her being bullied. In hindsight it was a mistake to sequester the jury as that lead to a lot of rushed decisions like the ruling on striking the responsibility to retreat from the jury instructions. The defense also very clearly was allowed to badger Rachel Jeantel, put words in the mouth of several witnesses. It was a lesson in how not to conduct a trial.
Why the prosecution could not fit the pieces of the puzzle together is one of the biggest mysteries of the trial. I was not aware until the trial that there were two encounters between them. The first encounter at the truck set up the second encounter. The pieces that matter most are as follows. A testy verbal exchange happened at the truck that ended when a frightened Trayvon Martin took off running and was able to lose Zimmerman by hiding in some bushes. Zimmerman got out of his truck to hunt him down. That set up a cat and mouse game where both were waiting the other one out. After a couple of minutes in hiding Martin called Jeantel and told her about events and when he thought Zimmerman had given up and the coast was clear he came out from behind the bushes only to discover that Zimmerman was rushing up behind him. After another testy exchange Zimmerman gave Martin a shove that knocked the cell out of Martin's hand. Martin retaliated with a hard left jab that hit Zimmerman squarely in the nose, knocking him down where his head struck the sidewalk. A brief struggle happened on the ground but the 46 pound heavier Zimmerman quickly got on top then got up and pulled out his gun. Martin then struggled to retreat but Zimmerman grabbed Martin's hoodie with his left hand while using his right hand to shoot Martin. By then they were about 10-12 feet from the sidewalk. The pieces fit from the available evidence. But the jury only got the picture painted by the defense that was loaded with holes.
neohippie
(1,267 posts)While I think that your very speculative description of the events does fit into almost if not all of the facts of the case, I also think that this is far from how the evidence was presented and therefore quite different from any explanation that the jury ever heard.
For starters, many of the witnesses necessary to make the facts support this narrative never were called to testify.
For example Mary Cutcher, the roomate of one of the witnesses, who's testimony would support the fact that the fight started at one end of the sidewalk and moved down closer to the house that TM was trying to return to and there must have been other witnesses to corroborate that because the 911 calls came from that end of the building as the fight started and moved down the path, to where the fight came to it's tragic conclusion.
The prosecution failed to treat Serino or any of the original investigators, as hostile, and since they didn't have a chance to get Zimmerman on the stand, they really should have used Serino's initial doubts about Zimmerman telling the truth more in their presentations.
I always thought that it was important to highlight Trayvon's attempt to speak to Zimmerman at the vehicle, to show that he wasn't some kind of angry hot-headed kid, he tried to talk to Zimmerman first to see why he was being followed, George just decided not to identify himself and to say no, to TM and then to roll up his window. At least this story about TM approaching GZ at his car and asking him if he was following him is how Serino apparently told Tracy Martin, Trayvon's father that his son ended up dead. He told him there were two confrontations.
This demonstrates, that not only was TM more level headed than the defense tried to paint him as, but that after trying to be civil, and realizing that GZ was still following him, he now has more cause to be afraid. And what does a reasonable person who is afraid do, they try to flee and run away from what is causing the fear. Which is just what TM did.
I think it was a huge mistake for the prosecution not to create a self defense argument for TM to show the jury that only one party's actions that night appeared to be motivated out of fear, and it wasn't Zimmerman, he acted like a tough guy who was determined to make sure that his wrongly profiled suspect would not get away this time.
I don't disagree with this story of the events of that night and that it does seem to fit with most all of the witness testimony and even the physical evidence, but could you really expect the jury to put all of that together.
I think this verdict is a product of the prosecution failing to create arguments that could produce such a clear telling of events. I don't think they failed on purpose, but I don't know why the prosecution didn't spend a lot more time presenting their case and or arguing for both the lessor charges with the murder charge, instead of making them seem like an afterthought
mazzarro
(3,450 posts)However, I disagree with your assumption pertaining to the prosecution failing to be truly persuasive. I think it was done on purpose and they were just going through the motion.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)appear to be doing something.
frylock
(34,825 posts)
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)was it ALL magically washed away by the rain? i think NOT.
daa
(2,621 posts)except as perhaps a defendant. I have been on 3 juries, foreman on 2. I only ever had t deal with one person like you with a "preconceived outcome". It was armed robbery and they tossed in kidnapping because the perpetrator told them to go to the back of the store while he left. A man on the jury said he's guilty or the state would not have charged him. You have no idea how seriously people take jury duty and the deliberative process necessary to render a verdict. Any asshole can watch TV and make up their mind but that is not how it works.
You also probably never lived in Florida or have been to Sanford. You should probably stick more to facts and less to opinions.
frylock
(34,825 posts)here's the facts. dumbass Floridian juror b-37 claims it was pouring rain and it was late at night when this occurred when it was only 7:16 PM with a light drizzle. the fucking moron also believes that zimmy's Vietnam vet buddy who testified about screams he heard fifty fucking years ago was the medical examiner. that's what I base my comments on. your little story about jury duty has jack fucking shit to do with this case, so you know where you can jam your fucking condescending bullshit, mkay?
onehandle
(51,122 posts)
SunSeeker
(58,283 posts)frontier00
(154 posts)Is Jimmy Carter the new Glen Greenwald, will he be n Fauxnews next
groundloop
(13,849 posts)"....based on the evidence presented because the prosecution inadvertently set the standard so high..."
In other words the police and prosecution screwed up. I won't argue with that, especially since it took 6 weeks of public outcry before Zimmerman was even arrested and a real investigation began.
John2
(2,730 posts)has a right to his own opinion, but President Carter is also an ex-President, that has interjected himself into a controversial issue, that many Americans, including African Americans disagree with the decision by an all white jury. A prestigious organization of African American lawyers disagreed with him and a prestigious organization representing minorities disagreed with him.
Every politician so far with influential status or influence, didn't go as far on the limb as President Carter has now. So he basically agrees with the jury's decision and places blame on the prosecution, exonerating the judge, jury and police actions. He also claims the jury followed the law. so what made Present Carter decided he needed to speak on this issue or interject his opinion, in such a one sided way, no other politician with so much influence had?
What President Carter is totally insensitive of is the rights of a 17 year old black youth in this case and his right to defend himself. As a Black male, I see Jimmy Carter as just another Southern white male from Georgia, who thinks he know what is right for me, or how African Americans should respond when an injustice is perpetrated on one of us. Would he have came out with the same position if Zimmerman was a Black man and killed an unarmed white youth walking through a Black neighborhood in Georgia? I think Mr Carter's remarks are condescending. Just because he felt the decision by an nearly all white jury was correct, doesn't mean millions of other Americans, including lawyers are wrong. The age of paternalism by politicians like Carter, is long gone in 2013. In fact, as a Black male, I find Mr Carter's comments offensive and insensitive to me. So I have a right to my opinion just as much as this man.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)we are talking about today. geez.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
disndat
(1,887 posts)is that the trial of Zimmerman was stacked to favor him by the prosecution and defense. Southern justice, if my interpretation J. Carter's statement is correct.
his rationale is he is wrong, and juror B37 is the evidence. He made those comments after B37 explained her rationale but no other juror has done so. So how would Mr Carter know the other jurors went by the evidence? He is doing nothing but damage control and justifying white privilege or the status quo. What he is doing, is torpedoing the efforts of people that disagree with the decision by this jury.
The city of Sanford is over 30 percent Black and 20 percent Hispanic. The jury was not a real representation of that jurisdiction. Everyone of those white women were from the top percent or middle income. Most were married and many had spouses that were lawyers, in particular B37. They are part of a privileged class. They didn't show any concerns about the rights of Trayvon Martin or his family. They saw George Zimmerman and his family as one of their own. The law didn't extend to the Martin family.
LearningCurve
(488 posts)I hear a lot of people saying they were all white, I'm not sure why this keeps getting repeated.
John2
(2,730 posts)come in all colors. George Zimmerman is also supposedly Hispanic. So by saying one juror was Hispanic, doesn't give you a pass. It also depends on your environmental background or influences.
Let me go even further into George Zimmerman's background. I don't know the truth of this, but wasn't there once a comment about his mother preferring him to marry white because of white privilege?
I think it is also important to know which jurors thought George Zimmerman was guilty at first, including the one juror believing he was guilty of second degree murder at first. That is why each juror need to express themselves, independently from the pressures of the other jurors. One juror has not spoken at all. I wonder why?
LearningCurve
(488 posts)I don't understand who you are referring to or what kind of pass that person feels he should get.
I also don't know why you'd say Zimmerman is "supposedly" Hispanic. Why the possible doubt?
wordpix
(18,652 posts)If this was the case, why did the prosecution agree to an all white jury (even if one was Hispanic)?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)to stand up for Trayvon Martin. The first jury vote was 3 to 3, yet the 3 who voted for conviction were quick to give up to the B37s on the jury.
titaniumsalute
(4,742 posts)A juror is supposed to base the verdict on the evidence and burden of proof. I'm not saying numerous jurors (and judges) do base decisions on empathy, but they really are not supposed to.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)The verdict was "correct" from a legal perspective, but abhorrent from a moral perspective.
I stand with NAACP President and CEO Benjamin Todd Jealous:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/trayvon-martin/os-naacp-convention-trayvon-martin-20130715,0,7727319.story
We need more leaders like him, who are not content to issue mealy-mouthed platitudes but instead demand change.
SunSeeker
(58,283 posts)But he said the evidence compelled the result, and I disagree. I would not have said it was the "right" decision. I think that kind of language is needlessly hurtful to Trayvon's family. It may have been the only decision the Florida law allowed, but it was not right.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)I do think that he is technically correct: as written, the law demands the verdict that was rendered. THAT IS WHAT IS SO FUCKED UP - that the SYG law compels a jury to make an immoral decision. It takes a particularly courageous jury to act counter to what the law implies. The Zimmerman jury was pretty much the opposite of courageous.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)The prosecution would have won easily.
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)convict Zimmerman of at least manslaughter.
Kennah
(14,578 posts)Manslaughter was a slam dunk, in my view. Murder Two might have been a high bar, but I think it may well have amounted to Murder Two.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)NOT!
Safetykitten
(5,162 posts)
Kablooie
(19,107 posts)John2
(2,730 posts)now, President Jimmy Carter felt the need to comment, after the revelations about Juror B37. I find his comments none other than condescending and providing cover for an all white jury. Let those jurors speak for themselves if they have the guts. I have already provided my rationale, of what I would have done going by the same evidence. Mr Carter would have claimed I wasn't going by the law. I would have replied to him, that he is dead wrong and just have a different interpretation of the evidence. The victim has rights and was not on Trial. The victim had a right to go to the store and back home safely without being molested by George Zimmerman, even if he was only a Black teenager. The victim also had the right to defend himself against George Zimmerman the best he knew how. Your Age is long gone when white privilege rule the day and the rights of Blacks was push back of the bus. The fruit fell off the tree. George Zimmerman must have been raised that he had a sense of privilege over other people. I suggest the investigators look no further than the tree he came from, and they may find the evidence needed to know who he really is.
If B37 was telling the truth about three jurors was ready to convict and had to be convinced not to, then Mr Carter is wrong. They would have never convinced me George Zimmerman was innocent or defending himself against an unarmed teenager. I would argue that with Mr Carter to the end of time. He will never convince me that jury went by the evidence instead of race. Carter is nothing but a dinosaur of what use to be a time of white supremacy and Blacks had to go to the back or opinions didn't matter. Well, this is 2013. That dog want hunt anymore.
totodeinhere
(13,688 posts)jury system works is that they have an initial vote in order to see where everybody stands, then they discuss the evidence. It is not unusual at all for jurors to change their votes after deliberating for a while. For example, in the OJ Simpson murder trail at least one juror initially voted for a conviction. But then after discussion that juror changed their vote.
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)Carter NEVER should have said what he said after juror B37 has been telling us how pro George she really is. The fact she took evidence they were supposed to ignore and made that the reason for the not guilty verdict. This is the third high profile case that got the verdict wrong. OJ, Casey Anthony, and Zimmerman. I believe Michael Jackson was guilty too, but he's dead now, so children no longer have to fear him, even his own.
groundloop
(13,849 posts)
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)like President Obama when people disagree with him? We just are not like Republicans.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)exceptions, think issue by issue, not "rah, rah, team."
We can agree with Carter on some things and disagree with him on others.
Now, someone who is secretly a Republican and takes a conservative view may think more rigidly and therefore have difficulty understanding the flexibility and creativity of Democrats' thinking and feel uncomfortable with all that change.
But such people should probably not lurk around on DU because it may make them very uncomfortable.
Bye.
Fascism is not in itself a new order of society. It is the future refusing to be born.
Aneurin Bevan
Response to JDPriestly (Reply #26)
devilgrrl This message was self-deleted by its author.
The Second Stone
(2,900 posts)But if I were a prominent public official, I wouldn't publicly say that the jury got it wrong. I don't think I would go so far as what Carter has done, and I think he should have not weighed in.
KinMd
(966 posts)...but all those on DU should?
an ex-President and don't have the influence he still has from his position. He has definately taken the side of the jury, which in fact is predominately white. What he is totally ignoring, just like that jury, is the rights of Trayvon Martin and his family as American citizens under the Constitution. We are not second class citizens. Carter has been part of Southern white male privilege all his life. The reason he won the Presidency, is because he was a white southerner and accepted by white Southerners during his run. He threw an olive branch to the Black community by recruiting them in his campaign. He was never a leader of the Civil Rights movement though and has never walked in a Black man's shoes. He acts nore patronizing or paternalistic than anythingelse. Those times are gone, because Blacks can stand on an equal footing, and defend themselves. When Carter can walk in the shoes of Trayvon Martin and live the lives Blacks in this country, then he has no understanding what the meaning of justice is to them. So who is he to lecture to us? I would say this again to President Carter, a lot of well educated Black lawyers disagreed with you. What makes Mr Carter think he is right and they are wrong? Let the courts and American people make that decision. A full investigation needs to be done on the entire procedure and what led up to this decision. I still believe the jury based their decision on race and not the evidence.
The evidence they ignored was the rights of Trayvon Martin and saw him as less human than George Zimmerman. I would have voted him guilty based on the evidence and the laws.
1. He killed Trayvon Martin
2, He pursued Trayvon Martin with a deadly weapon.No evidence he stopped or concealed his weapon in a holster.
3. He did it with ill will, because he considered Martin up to no good and they always get away.
4. No evidence existed Trayvon Martin pursued George Zimmerman or had any ill will except fear of Zimmerman following him.
5. The only person had a right to self defense was Trayvon Martin because George Zimmerman was the pursuer and initiated the events. Just because Zimmerman had more injuries doesn't mean he was the one fighting for his life after he pursued Martin. The only reason Zimmerman was in the place he was at is because he pursued Martin. It didn't mean Zimmerman just up and decided to take a stroll. Intent has every thing to do with it. All the time, it was not known he also had a loaded gun when he pursued Martin. Pursuing someone with a loaded gun, places them in imminent danger, which Mr Carter dismisses as evidence. Zimmerman's obsession of catching Martin, showed no fear of Martin at all.
6. Zimmerman's life was never in danger, and despite the testimony of Coot, Zimmerman had the physical advantage over Martin. Martin was still a minor and weighed over 40 pounds less including having a slimmer build. They never could have sold that story to me because Martin could never do that to me, if I took Zimmerman's place. I'm a male, and heavy set like Zimmerman, weighing over 200 pounds. There is no kid weighing 158 pounds as skinny as Martin would have a chance of beating me to death or have me screaming for my life. Especially if I had the advantage of a loaded gun. I don't need a gun to whip a kid,that kid would need a gun against me. As far as, I'm concern, John Good made no sense at all, and I could tell he embellished his story to help out Zimmerman. Ground pound, MMA style,gave it away and also Detective Serino suggesting it to him. I don't think he saw all those details in the dark. I think he made it up. Even Zimmerman claimed it was too dark.
7. I would have believed Jeantel to counter Good's story, because she was the only witness testifying on who attacked whom and the person that snuck up in the Dark.
There you have it, by the evidence Anybody can dispute it all they want. I would have convicted him of second degree murder period. He had a depraved heart when he called him derogatory names and profile him as the suspect. Trayvon was his prey that night. Other incidences and 911 calls illustrates Zimmerman's frame of mind and how he sought to give himself a sense of power over other people. He was a wannabe cop.
can and will defend ourselves among all you said that is true. EX-POTUS is wrong. White southern male cultured Privilege and ALL. geez
John2
(2,730 posts)opinion, because even President Obama or Hillary Clinton didn't go as far on the limb as Carter did in this case. And I do remember Carter went out on the limb for the Tea party when they started protesting against President Obama by justifying their racial signs, claiming it was their right to express themselves. I disagreed when he did that too, because most of those demonstrations had a racial overtone in them.
totodeinhere
(13,688 posts)and the NSA. I think that President Carter has got to the point in his life where he will say whatever he damned well pleases and if anyone doesn't like it he doesn't care.
John2
(2,730 posts)like Teddy Kennedy either. I never voted for Jimmy Carter, but I did vote for Teddy. The same way I saw Carter is the same way I saw him back then. He is still a son of the Old South and thinks he is entitled to a certain status. So he has always said, what he dam well pleases. The problem is, other people will too. So I'm saying what I dam well please and probably Snowden is too.
totodeinhere
(13,688 posts)was easy pickings for Reagan. And surely with all his faults Carter was a much better alternative than Reagan.
byeya
(2,842 posts)that proved to be too far out of line that progressive Democrats - remember them - that caused them to say a primary was needed. It was too bad Carter did not lose to Kennedy in the primary.
Beacool
(30,518 posts)It's the prosecution's fault for overreaching and charging him with murder 2. It was clearly not an M2 case. Furthermore, Zimmerman was never indicted by a Grand Jury. A special prosecutor was appointed by the governor and she decided that a Grand Jury was not needed. I still believe that if Zimmerman had been treated like the average person accused of a similar crime, he would have been convicted of manslaughter. The prosecution bowed to pressure from politicians, the media and the public. It doomed their case to failure. Similar to what happened in two other cases that were media circuses: OJ and Casey Anthony. Identical results in all three cases: not guilty and justice not served.
Let this be a lesson to prosecutors for future high profile cases: do not overreach.
totodeinhere
(13,688 posts)Yes in hindsight that was probably a mistake. But remember that when this story first broke many at DU were calling for murder 1. Some at HuffPost were also calling for murder 1, and when I opined that perhaps murder 1 might be an overreach I almost got my head bit off for saying so. Yes, I realize that such reactions were more emotional than logical, and who can blame people for getting emotional over this tragedy? I guess that the prosecution should not have got caught up in that emotion and should have dispassionately applied the law to the situation and perhaps indicted him for some flavor of manslaughter.
On edit - Or as some others have pointed out perhaps the prosecution charged too high on purpose because they had a secret agenda to get him off. I really hope that isn't the case. If so we haven't made as much progress in the South as I had thought.
Beacool
(30,518 posts)it's precisely when clear heads need to prevail. The prosecution should have ignored the pressure and charged Zimmerman as if it had been a run of the mill case. It is normal for people to react emotionally to the death of an unarmed 17 year old, but it's the prosecution's job to keep calm and charge based on facts, not political and public pressure.
Anyone on DU that called for murder 1 has no knowledge of criminal law.
totodeinhere
(13,688 posts)John2
(2,730 posts)There is a whole organization of professional lawyers, that disagree with you. And to give you a hint, I have studied Crminanal law in a Law school. Even Supreme Court Justices do not always agree on interpretations of law. You are not some elite club with entitlement on the law, you know.
Beacool
(30,518 posts)782.04 Murder.—(1)(a) The unlawful killing of a human being:
1. When perpetrated from a premeditated design to effect the death of the person killed or any human being;
2. When committed by a person engaged in the perpetration of, or in the attempt to perpetrate, any:
a. Trafficking offense prohibited by s. 893.135(1),
b. Arson,
c. Sexual battery,
d. Robbery,
e. Burglary,
f. Kidnapping,
g. Escape,
h. Aggravated child abuse,
i. Aggravated abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult,
j. Aircraft piracy,
k. Unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb,
l. Carjacking,
m. Home-invasion robbery,
n. Aggravated stalking,
o. Murder of another human being,
p. Resisting an officer with violence to his or her person,
q. Aggravated fleeing or eluding with serious bodily injury or death,
r. Felony that is an act of terrorism or is in furtherance of an act of terrorism; or
3. Which resulted from the unlawful distribution of any substance controlled under s. 893.03(1), cocaine as described in s. 893.03(2)(a)4., opium or any synthetic or natural salt, compound, derivative, or preparation of opium, or methadone by a person 18 years of age or older, when such drug is proven to be the proximate cause of the death of the user, is murder in the first degree and constitutes a capital felony, punishable as provided in s. 775.082.
(b) In all cases under this section, the procedure set forth in s. 921.141 shall be followed in order to determine sentence of death or life imprisonment.
(2) The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree and constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0782/Sections/0782.04.html
I'm reading the statute:
1. The unlawful killing of a human being. This has to be proven it was unlawful. We know a human being was killed by Zimmerman.
1) premeditated is debatable
2) f,g,n,o and q (kidnapping,Escape,aggravated stalking,murder of another human being,
aggravated fleeing or eluding with serious bodily injury or death) are all elements that are debatable. Take your pick?
(2). the unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by an act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of a particular individual is murder in the second degree
and constitutes the felony of the first degree, punishment by a term not exceeding life.
1. George Zimmerman did kill Trayvon Martin. That is a proven fact. Was it lawful or unlawful?
2. Why did George Zimmerman cause the death of Trayvon Martin? George Zimmerman thought Trayvon Martin was suspicous and reported that on a 911 call. In the 911 call, George Zimmerman described Trayvon Martin as an Ahole,punk, and up to no good. He also described Trayvon Martin comming towards his vehicle and saying, What is this guy's deal. He then claimed Martin had something in his hands and looked like he was on drugs or something. He also described Martin circling his vehicle.
That whole conversation indicates ill will towards Martin. Zimmerman went on to say, Trayvon Martin ran. In fact in his words, "Oh shit, he is running." There was evidence Zimmerman took off after Martin, (door bells chiming) and the 911 operator verifying he did. He was advised not to. Even though he said OK, didn't prove he did. He was also heard cursing, these Aholes or [punks always get away). It further shows ill will towards Martin and his obsession about Martin getting away. Those are elements of a depraved mind.
The elements for concerns of human life and imminent danger, has to consider the actions of George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin when it comes to intent and what both persons were thinking or their actions, which can reasonably be inferred.
George Zimmerman did not only aggressively pursue Trayvon Martin, but he did it with a Deadly weapon (gun) which was already loaded and placed in firing position. his excuse was that he always carry a gun in his holster, loaded and ready to fire. I don't know any prudent person that does that, or any safety expert that would recommend that? He intended to use that gun from the moment he went after Martin.
Martin on the other hand had reasonable concerns to believe George Zimmerman was an imminent danger to him. When George Zimmerman didn't identify himself and took out after him as soon as he ran, illustrates, that he had some apprehension of Zimmerman.
Jeantel brings it out even more what Martin thought of Zimmerman by describing Zimmerman as some crazy white cracker, following him. Martin sure thought Zimmerman was depraved. He is the one being pursued by Zimmerman.
Furthermore there is no evidence Martin turned back to hunt down Zimmerman, but from Zimmerman. The incident began again when Martin was on his cell phone with Jeantel, not him sneaking up on Zimmerman. I don't think Martin circled back and just dropped his cell phone to attack Zimmerman. If he was doing that Zimmerman would have heard him talking on his cell phone with Jeantel. What the evidence favors is Zimmerman snuck up on Martin, because he was so obsessed with him getting away.
It even furthur indicates that, when he abruptly decided not to give his address to the 911 operater because he was afraid Martin would hear him. It indicates he thought Martin was still around and he was searching for him, with a loaded gun. It just matters if you believe Zimmerman's lies.
There are also other records of 911 calls, that Zimmerman had an obsession with catching certain persons. He placed Trayvon Mrtin into that same category, even though he knew nothing about Trayvon Martin.
What is ignored is Trayvon's Martin's rights to defend himself against Zimmerman, who afterall had a loaded gun. That is like the rapist blaming the victim. Whatever life threatening injuries, even though Zimmerman claims, did not exist. The only life threatening wound in the whole altercation was from a deadly weapon, which Zimmerman did not hesitate to use as his first and only method of self defense as indicated by Trayvon's injuries.
Just because Zimmerman had more injuries, does not mean Trayvon started the altercation or Zimmerman was ever fighting in self defense. All it means, is he was fighting to subdue Martin for resisting him. Trayvon's last words according to her, Was, "What are you following me for", and Zimmerman responding what are you doing around here.
She also claim the communication went weak, and she heard the sound of wet grass and Trayvon saying Get off me. I believe her. And if you believe her, that is evidence, George Zimmerman pursued Trayvon Martin, and never assumed the rights to self defense.
I also don't believe John Good could possibly see or heard anything in the details he gave, because of the weather conditions and the lighting. He is the only witness claiming such details. Even George Zimmerman claimed it was too Dark. He couldn't even see addresses or where Martin came from. This is the same witness claiming that he told both persons to stop. He also waited awhile until he thought they got serious. He never mentioned Zimmerman said anything to him, but he did hear Zimmerman calling for help and getting beat MMA style as suggested by Detective Serino. That is why I don't believe John Good. It is too in sinc with Zimmerman's claims of self defense and the theme from Detective Serino. If Zimmerman was getting beat to death by this kid, I'm pretty sure Good would have stepped in and stopped it. I don't think he would have let Martin beat Zimmerman to death while he stood there watching. Serino also dismissed himself from the case, after Zimmerman was charged.
Zimmerman also claims he only shot Martin after Martin went for his loaded gun. The only way Martin could have known Zimmerman's gun was loaded, is if Zimmerman was pointing it at Martin and threatening him with it first. There is too many holes in Zimmerman's story and some quite frankly is ridiculous.
John2
(2,730 posts)and still was murder. That jury will not get off like some people are calling for. A more diverse jury wouldn't have let him off. I probably have just as much education as either of you two and disagree with you. So I'm not going to fall in line, excusing this predominately white jury like some people want. One juror has spoke, now let the others speak for themselves. Carter and nobodyelse can speak for them! I think people already disgree with you, B37 went by the evidence. You keep saying manslaughter, as if Zimmerman didn't deliberately intend to shoot Martin. There was no manslaughter intended.
glad you're here.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)plain and simple.
polichick
(37,626 posts)Not sure how "inadvertently" it was.
John2
(2,730 posts)intended if there was a fix all along. The Prosecution didn't want to prosecute until they were pressured to do it. They are still trying to justify the verdict. People can even say the jury was fixed now. Over 30 percent of Sanford is Black. 20 percent is Hispanic. At least half of the jury should have been minorities. Even B37 gave a reason to strike her from the jury. She should have never made the cut. Every Juror favored Zimmerman and the Defense from the start. It was no wonder some of them thought he was guilty. It was very easy to persuade them he was not. None of them have to face the Black community. They will just go back to their segregated communities now because it was just a colored boy.
polichick
(37,626 posts)
24601
(4,142 posts)Special Prosecutors. The Killing took place in Sanford, slightly NE of Orlando and the State's Attorneys from the 4th Judicial Circuit in Jacksonville.
The criticism leveled in regarding the lack of response was against the Sanford Police and the Judicial District there.
The 4th District SAs had nothing to do with any foot-dragging and pursued their role from the 1st day appointed. Yes, they were unable to be on the scene from day one, but they had no reason to be as they had no jurisdiction.
Deuce
(960 posts)
Poll_Blind
(23,864 posts)PB
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)I voted for him, but also lived in Georgia. Carter was your typical politician of the time, willing to sacrifice decency to minorities to garner votes from bigots (including those armed with guns). Sounds like he is regressing a bit.
Otherwise, he may well be the greatest x-Prez we have ever had.
cstanleytech
(28,473 posts)Rather he is pointing out that the juror made the correct decision based upon what the law is in that state which was pretty easy to foresee when they asked for the states legal definition of manslaughter.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)cstanleytech
(28,473 posts)99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)they are always wrong, except twice a day.
but I don't know what to call this. I have almost ALWAYS agreed with
President Carter on every freaking issue; but it seems his Southern
up-bringing has caught up with him or something.
This is what I believe also.
forestpath
(3,102 posts)SunSeeker
(58,283 posts)
Skittles
(171,716 posts)I don't think reasonable doubt requires believing ridiculous stories
toby jo
(1,269 posts)He'll stand up in the middle of controversial situations, like being for the Palestinians while they get the non-ending quash from the Jews.
A Florida politician pointed out that the legal system has the same problems with black on black crimes. Oftentimes it is simply impossible to procure a 'guilty' verdict even when you know who the perp is.
We're not going to end rascism, it's in Africa, India, China, Europe, it's just in us. But we can work it out with a better legal system.
Know your enemy, kill your enemy. Too much (understandable) emotion to get the job done, here.
Fringe
(175 posts)Come on now Carter? Don't make me take you off my avatar. Stop giving racist a free pass because those are the people you grew up next door to.
Its 2013! Evolve all ready, damit!
Gator_Matt
(188 posts)Fringe
(175 posts)
Pterodactyl
(1,687 posts)Karmadillo
(9,253 posts)
yurbud
(39,405 posts)when the law has none.
WhoWoodaKnew
(847 posts)the jurors had no choice.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)the president.
Jimmy Carter is a lot more conservative than many of us realize or understand.
He's an old generation Dixiecrat, but not the especially racist kind.
He was also a Southern Baptist, even though later in life he renouced and divorced himself from the racist, misogyny and homophobia and overall backwards way of thinking associated with the Southern Baptists.
His comments do not surprise me at all. (I'm black and was raised a Southern Baptist.)
I love Jimmy Carter. Always have. Always will.
However, we make the mistake of thinking that he is as progressive as we are on a number of issues, even though he's definitely not as bad as other southern Democrats or southerners, period.
The battle between him and Ted Kennedy is a case in point.
I also now work for the federal housing agency, and one of my colleagues told me that it was Carter who was even more conservative in his approach to housing policy than some Republicans were. (George Romney (Mitt Romney's father), the head of HUD back in the early 70s was actually more liberal than Carter when it came to housing, especially for the poor or low-income families.)