walking while black - Trayvon Martin

[Duchess]

Woooo. The cop just said that George wasn't just following T, he was chasing him!

[Midwest Spy]

This only became a 'case' after the public realized there weren't going to be any charges filed.

Charges were filed because it was the right thing to do. I went back and read a little of the beginning of this thread. People were outraged that charges weren't filed. When the hell did it become illegal to walk in the rain, to take a shortcut? In your opinion what did T do wrong, what did he do that he deserved to be shot dead?

After the initial investigation the cops decided there wasn't enough evidence to file charges.

And no matter how you feel, GZ profiling and even stalking, to use your term, is not illegal.

This case has always been about who intiated the actual physical confrontation and subsequently who indeed feared for their life.

As I said just a few posts back, without any eyewitness testimony or forensic evidence to prove otherwise, GZ's version of events will stand.

Adub has me thinking that GZ may in fact be guilty, I just don't know how the state can prove it at this point.

[Duchess]

This case has always been about who intiated the actual physical confrontation and subsequently who indeed feared for their life.

I'll die believing George initiated all of this by the simple act of following T. George's actions are what instigated this entire situation. The moment George laid eyes on T George had him guilty of something, anything to justify following him...erm, chasing him. Heh

[HairOfTheDog]

"Their" true verdict is correct, Tiki.

It's a verdict reached by those six people deliberating the evidence.

I have no idea what influences a juror to decide an issue.

I have no idea if they upheld their oath and deliberated ONLY on what was admissible and allowed in court.

Therefore, I can only state that a jury reached a conclusion (rendered or did not render a verdict).

However . . . many a man claims dey wuz convicted and sentenced unjustly cuz of da color of dey skin.

How dat be different . . . unless skin color be evidence?

If it weren't dependent on people, the process would be damn near perfect.

I can't read anybody's mind, so I don't pretend to know what they're thinking. For me, I trust the system and jury instructions, and I trust the jury when they confirm that it's their true verdict, so say they, one and all.

If there's evidence that one or more intentionally lied or tainted the verdict, the appeal process kicks in.

In the Zimmerman case, I have no reason to believe that the jurors are predestined to deliver a verdict that they don't believe in.

I've seen no rational justification for assuming that this jury won't deliver a true verdict. But, rational is subjective and it's just my opinion.

[BlueTiki]

In the Zimmerman case, I have no reason to believe that the jurors are predestined to deliver a verdict that they don't believe in.

I've seen no rational justification for assuming that this jury won't deliver a true verdict. But, rational is subjective and it's just my opinion.

I wish I had your faith and conviction . . . errr . . . strong belief.

I wish my faith in the system was stronger.

Unfortunately, there is too much "evidence" that jurors, after swearing an oath, fail to uphold their sacred duty.

Why do you think the jury consultant business is so lucrative?

Just gotta find one "sympathetic" juror . . .

(Hell . . . look at the abominations within the military's handling of sexual assaults. These officers took an oath, too. And then ignored it.)

[HairOfTheDog]

I hear you, Tiki, and I agree. The system isn't perfect, never will be.

I understand that there are often mistakes and injustices. I don't think there's any way to avoid those, though they can be minimized with good judges and strong processes. Maybe with more predictable juries/deciders too? IDK...

If we had trial by judges only, that might take out some of the subjectivity that comes with a jury of our peers. But, the different view points and collaboration has its merits in terms of determining justice too. IMO.

Professional juries is another option. They would likely understand the laws more precisely, but I can envision some downsides to this option as well.

We've got a peer jury in this case. I'm interested to see the remainder of the evidence and hear the verdict. I've also become more interested in post-trial juror interviews recently. Looking forward to those.

[Jimbone]

I was beginning to think I was losing my mind, but tiki and MS understand what I am saying.

I have to admit that I am stunned at HotD's stance and refusal to acknowledge the jury may be affected by the external circus that has surrounded this case.

A little history review for those who forgot the racial hub-bub that finally got this case to court...

3/23/12 President of the United States, Barack Obama: "If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon,"

















Miami Heat show their support:


Celebrities join the cause:



Nope, no racial pressure or tension at all surrounding this case.

[Duchess]

Wow. So no white people were interested in seeing justice. Ain't dat somethin'.

[BlueTiki]

Trayvon Supporters Threaten Riots, Looting if Zimmerman Acquitted

STORY

I absolutely believe there is a mindset of violence within the black community.

This is the time (while the trial is in progress) where Sharpton, Jackson and King need to come forth and state that, as Americans, we must accept the verdict and the appellate process (if Zim is convicted).

But they won't.

Thank God the faggots calmed down after White Night!

[Jimbone]

Wow. So no white people were interested in seeing justice. Ain't dat somethin'.

There are white people in there, don't you see them? Two of them are holding the banner for Christ's sake. There is a white girl holding an "arrest George Zimmerman" sign, there is a white girl throwing her fists in the air... white people in the crowds, holding up iphones...

[Duchess]

There are white people in there, don't you see them? Two of them are holding the banner for Christ's sake.

I beg your pardon. I was overwhelmed by all the blackness!

[BlueTiki]

Woooo. The cop just said that George wasn't just following T, he was chasing him!

Damn!

That means that Trayvon was afraid and running (or guilty of something . . . shoplifting . . . my guess).

However, instead of continuing to run away in fear, he turned and confronted the Zim!

Yup! That's it!

Betcha Skittles never thought tubbie was packin' when he morphed into badass mode.

[Duchess]

Betcha Skittles never thought tubbie was packin' when he morphed into badass mode.

I couldn't know this but yet I'm certain you're exactly right.

[Jimbone]

I beg your pardon. I was overwhelmed by all the blackness!

Not your fault. The protests were markedly more black than white... unless of course you were slyly trying to call me a racist.

[username]

The Oscar Grant "riots" were pretty tame. 80 people arrested. I don't expect massive rioting or anything if GZ is acquitted. It will fizzle.

[HairOfTheDog]

I don't need a photo collage, Jim. I remember it all. Some of the jurors do as well. They could have avoided being selected as jurors if they were afraid of what happened in the past or afraid of what some predict might happen in the future.

The final jurors claim that they are able to disregard those factors and are not afraid. I don't believe that you know better how they think and feel than they themselves.

The public outcry and demonstrations in regard to Zimmerman not being charged, the words of Sharpton and Jackson a year and a half ago, the passionate opinions for and against Zimmerman... none of it would affect my ability to sit on the jury and respect the sworn oath.

I would be perfectly able not to consider those previous external factors nor to try to predict future public reaction as a consideration in verdict deliberation.

I am not exceptional. I have no problem believing that the six women who made it on to the jury can do the same, despite your insistence otherwise.

I disagree with your notion that if the jury delivers a Manslaughter conviction, it will be because they were afraid to acquit so they lied to avoid public backlash. But, I'll expect to hear that tune over and over again if Manslaughter is the verdict.

If the jury acquits, no need to pose another theory proclaiming to read their minds again and attempting to explain how your theory today was simply misunderstood.

I already get where you're coming from. I find your position to be presumptuous and unreasonable. Differences of opinion, that's all.

[username]

Woooo. The cop just said that George wasn't just following T, he was chasing him!

I posted this up thread but I think it bears repeating. I think the prosecution's case is screwed if they don't have some great forensic evidence but the following is what they should be pounding home with the jurors to argue against Z's self defense claim (he "chased" him, he didn't identify himself, etc). Still, without knowing what happened in those few moments, I'm not sure the jury would convict regardless. Murder 2 was a dumb charge.

The justifications for use of force will also not apply where the evidence establishes that the defendant initially provoked violence against him- or herself. To claim self-defense in such a scenario, Section 776.041 requires the defendant to demonstrate that he or she used every reasonable means short of deadly force to extricate him- or herself from the situation, and that the degree of force used by the other person (the initial non-aggressor) led the defendant to reasonably believe that he or she was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. Alternatively, a defendant who is an initial aggressor may claim self-defense if: (1) in good faith, he or she withdrew from physical contact, (2) clearly indicated to the other person that he or she desired to withdraw and terminate the use of force, and (3) despite the communication and withdrawal, the other person continued or resumed the use of force. See Section 776.041(2)(b), Florida Statutes.

[Duchess]

I think the prosecution's case is screwed if they don't have some great forensic evidence but the following is what they should be pounding home with the jurors to argue against Z's self defense claim (he "chased" him, he didn't identify himself, etc).

Agreed!

[BlueTiki]

. . . but the following is what they should be pounding home with the jurors to argue against Z's self defense claim (he "chased" him, he didn't identify himself, etc).

It's been hot here, so maybe I'm confused . . .

1.) You can't chase unless someone is running.

2.) "He didn't identify himself." So what? If he did, was Trayvon obligated to immediately stop running and become compliant?

Skittles ran, turned (when he thought he had an advantage), put his game face on and got all up in the Zim's mug.

Skittles didn't think tubbie had a gun and went crazy nigger on his fat ass.

Now 'splain them self defense rules to me again?

[Cynical Ninja]

2.) "He didn't identify himself." So what? If he did, was Trayvon obligated to immediately stop running and become compliant?

Not “obligated to” but “might have done”.

I think the point is T had no fucking clue who Z was or why he was following him.

For all T knew Z could have been a homicidal racist, serial killer or sex offender. If Z had identified himself to T as working for the local neighbourhood watch and there had been a number of burglaries in the area it “might” have diffused the situation. T would have realised Z wasn't a cop cops identify themselves but he must have been thinking “who the fuck is this guy and why is he following me?”