[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by OAW 

I'll repeat what I said earlier. Have you ever considered that perhaps Rachel Jeantel was "combative" because Atty. Don West was combative towards her? And now I'll encourage you to recognize the fundamental fact that Rachel Jeantel's cross-examination by Atty. West on the witness stand was NOT their first encounter. There is this thing we call the deposition process.

OAW

That's speculation, I'm not aware that anything like that ever happened, though I did see with my own eyes the way she acted towards him on the stand before he even said a word.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Not according to one of the jurors.

That's half the jury, FYI.

Apparently it wasn't a very strong feeling if they back away from it that quickly.

You mean one happened when he was closer to Travyon's age? Could you explain to me at what rate the relevance of assaulting a police officer decays?

I'm much closer to being the person I was 3 months ago than I am to my 33 y/o self (10 years back), you are too.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I couldn't tell you, I'm posting it to cast reasonable doubt on Shaddim's feeling that the jury wholly believed Zim's story.

Oh. I was only addressing the part where he said it was unlikely the whole jury didn't believe anyone. I think he's correct that would have taken longer.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I'm much closer to being the person I was 3 months ago than I am to my 33 y/o self (10 years back), you are too.

Shit. Dakar is old.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I couldn't tell you, I'm posting it to cast reasonable doubt on Shaddim's feeling that the jury wholly believed Zim's story.

Why would I do that? The juror herself said they believed GZ's story. She even said she'd be comfortable with him being on her Neighborhood Watch today.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The real injustice is NOT SNITCHING on countless perps guilty of murder that will never face the law for their cold-blooded crimes. I wonder if my brothers and sisters understand just how many Zimmermans they've protected by not snitching. No... no, we don't want to talk about those things. Those are real things. Horrible things that take the lives of many more than one, every day.

You raise an interesting point here. Originally "snitching" was defined as a criminal providing info to the police about or testifying against their criminal cohorts. The classic scenario where one guy gives up his partners in crime for a reduced sentence. But over the years it has evolved into something much more pervasive.

omertà - a popular cultural attitude and code of honor that places heavy importance on a deep-rooted "code of silence", non-cooperation with authorities, and non-interference in the illegal (and legal) actions of others. It implies "the categorical prohibition of cooperation with state authorities or reliance on its services, even when one has been victim of a crime". A person should absolutely avoid interfering in the business of others and should not inform the authorities of a crime under any circumstances (though if justified he may personally avenge a physical attack on himself or on his family by vendetta, literally a taking of revenge, a feud). Even if somebody is convicted of a crime he has not committed, he is supposed to serve the sentence without giving the police any information about the real criminal, even if that criminal has nothing to do with the Mafia himself. Within Mafia culture, breaking omertà is punishable by death.

"No Snitching" for all intents and purposes is an urban version of "omertà". The hardcore criminal element in the inner city is approximately 5% of the residents but is responsible for approximately 90% of the crime. A "code of the streets" that includes "No Snitching" is, quite frankly, a rational policy for those who are routinely engaged in illegal activities. In bygone eras, however, "civilians" had more leeway when it came to what was or was not considered "snitching". For instance, if they were burglarized or someone was attacked or killed ... especially children ... cooperating with the police was not considered a violation of the code. However, these days the hardcore criminal element is significantly less inclined to make such distinctions. They are the enforcers of the code ... and everybody knows it. A lot of civilians aren't enamored with the police anyway due to the long history of police brutality and harassment. Policies like "Stop & Frisk" certainly aren't helping on that front. The police often operate as an "occupying force" in inner city communities so the alienation is real. That being said, we should be careful not to be unduly critical of civilians who respect the code of "No Snitching". After all, there's a reason why the phrase "Snitches get stitches." exist. And it's not a game. It's very often a matter of life and death.

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

That's speculation, I'm not aware that anything like that ever happened, though I did see with my own eyes the way she acted towards him on the stand before he even said a word.

Why would you not be aware that a deposition is standard procedure in a criminal trial? And if you are questioning whether Atty. West was combative towards her during the deposition process then you can always see what Ms. Jeantel had to say about that. Unless of course you are more inclined to buy into the narrative that she had attitude towards him for no reason.

OAW

[subego]

Isn't it the prosecution's job to prepare their witness to get hammered?

A combative defense attorney in a murder trial. Imagine that!

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Why would I do that? The juror herself said they believed GZ's story. She even said she'd be comfortable with him being on her Neighborhood Watch today.

Actually the juror said SHE believed GZ's story. She was one of the three who initially voted Not Guilty so we can surmise they may have shared that view. Then again maybe not. But there were three who initially voted to find GZ guilty so it's not a stretch to say that they most certainly did NOT believe GZ's story.

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by subego 

Isn't it the prosecution's job to prepare their witness to get hammered?

A combative defense attorney in a murder trial. Imagine that!

I agree. It did not seem to me that she was adequately prepared. And for that I fault the prosecution .... not Ms. Jeantel.

OAW

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Why would you not be aware that a deposition is standard procedure in a criminal trial? And if you are questioning whether Atty. West was combative towards her during the deposition process then you can always see what Ms. Jeantel had to say about that. Unless of course you are more inclined to buy into the narrative that she had attitude towards him for no reason.

OAW

That's not what I said:

I'm not aware that anything like that ever happened

Meaning I'm not aware that he was combative towards her at any time.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Actually the juror said SHE believed GZ's story. She was one of the three who initially voted Not Guilty so we can surmise they may have shared that view. Then again maybe not. But there were three who initially voted to find GZ guilty so it's not a stretch to say that they most certainly did NOT believe GZ's story.

OAW

and did a 180 in 17 hours? Very unlikely.

[Uncle Skeleton]

I once saw 11 jurors do a 180 in just 96 minutes. And they were angry. 17 hours seems like quite a long time compared to that.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Meaning I'm not aware that he was combative towards her at any time.

Dude. I just told you that's what she said. Were you in the room? Did you see it with your own eyes? Well of course not. My point is that she's said this in her own words during the interview:

"When the state closed they're trying to explain what kind of person I am. And you can see the kind of person I am," she explained. "Out of the whole stand I never cussed out Don [West]. Even during our little back - since March."

Having seen her courtroom nemesis, the man who aggressively cross-examined her doing the trial, in the CNN hallway earlier in the evening, Jeantel took the high road:

"I'll hold it back. The only reason I have not said anything to Don Weston [sic] because my parents taught me better. As an adult you don't have the right to disrespect an adult," she explained. "Don't curse - okay I did give attitude."

Rachel Jeantel on attorney Don West: "I'll hold it back … my parents taught me better" – Piers Morgan - CNN.com Blogs

The part in bold clearly indicates that the friction between these two went back to March at least.

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

and did a 180 in 17 hours? Very unlikely.

Seriously. Did you even watch the interview with Juror B37 on Anderson Cooper's show at all? Because if you did I can't imagine how you would be making these inane comments when they simply aren't supported by what the woman actually said.

First of all, this lady said that the jury was confused about the law. Particularly the jury instructions. And if you watched the trial live that's not surprising because the prosecution and defense argued over this very issue during the hearing immediately proceeding the closing arguments. Now with that as the backdrop she went on to say ....

Originally Posted by Juror B37

Because of the heat of the moment and the Stand Your Ground. And he had a right to defend himself. If he felt threatened that his life was going to be taken away from him or he was going to have bodily harm umm he had a right.

In other words, the events that led up to the confrontation were IMMATERIAL by implication with this quoted statement and explicitly stated with subsequent statements she made.

Originally Posted by Juror B37

I feel sorry for Trayvon for the situation he was in. And I feel sorry for George for the situation he GOT HIMSELF IN.

The way that this juror equated these things is a testament to the fundamental injustice of this situation. But in any event, the point I'm trying to get across to you with her statements is that what the jurors BELIEVED had nothing to do with it. Just because the 3 who originally voted to convict "did a 180 in 17 hours" ... that's not an indication that they believed GZ's bullsh*t. Because his story DID. NOT. MATTER. Who was the aggressor DID. NOT. MATTER. Because Florida's extremely permissive self-defense laws says that the only thing that mattered was if GZ had a "reasonable fear of imminent death or grave bodily injury" IMMEDIATELY PRIOR to pulling the trigger. And while it is an affirmative defense the evidence threshold is very low. As in given the very "elastic standard" for reasonable doubt ... images of some minor injuries and a cockamamie story will suffice. Because the prosecution is forced to have to prove a negative beyond a reasonable doubt.

Everything that happened before the trigger was pulled ... whether he was lying or telling the truth ... DID. NOT. MATTER. Because the jury felt forced to disregard all of that given their interpretation of Florida law and the "confusing jury instructions". And so what we had was a situation where the jury believed that an armed man can pick a fight, take a few good licks, then pull out a gun and shoot an unarmed kid ... as long as there are no witnesses (including the dead victim) to contradict his claims of "fear". Which is INSANE.

OAW

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Dude. I just told you that's what she said. Were you in the room? Did you see it with your own eyes? Well of course not. My point is that she's said this in her own words during the interview:

Rachel Jeantel on attorney Don West: "I'll hold it back … my parents taught me better" – Piers Morgan - CNN.com Blogs

The part in bold clearly indicates that the friction between these two went back to March at least.

OAW

That relates to the issues in the courtroom, and I did watch that. She was aggressive before he even opened his mouth.

[OAW]

And excerpt from an interesting article I came across further illustrates why the jury felt compelled to vote Not Guilty given the jury instructions they were given:

Is a trial fair if the law was effectively breitbarted to the point of distorting it’s meaning? Based on the instructions that the jurors were given, the meaning of Florida’s law on self-defense was distorted. They were left with the impression that even if someone provoked an altercation they still had an absolute right to use lethal force.

The defense fought hard and won the exclusion of an instruction on the following clause:l

Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

Moreover, as Alafair Burke of the Huffington Post pointed out, the defense persuaded the judge to leave this instruction out based on a misreading of the ruling in the case they cited.

Using those important words “error” and “as a matter of law,” Zimmerman’s lawyers successfully focused on the fact that Gibbs’s conviction was reversed to persuade Judge Nelson to strike the instruction. But in Gibbs, the defendant’s conviction was reversed because the court failed to instruct the jury that the defendant’s “provocation” — as used in the initial aggressor limitation — had to be provocation through either “force” or “threat of force.” Acccordingly, the appellate court reasoned, the jury might have mistakenly believed that the defendant’s words or gestures were sufficient to make her an initial aggressor – “no matter how slight or subjective the provocation.” Importantly, the court in Gibbs did not indicate that the jury should have heard nothing about the initial aggressor exception. The only error was that the instruction was overly broad by failing to include the “force or threat of force” language.

If the jury was instructed on this part of the law, it would need to consider if George Zimmerman was the initial aggressor in the fight that led to Trayvon Martin’s death. It would mean considering the facts that occurred before the fight. Facts like Zimmerman’s decision to ignore police instructions to stay in his vehicle would have had a different significance than they had in this case. The inclusion of this jury instruction would mean that the reason Zimmerman disregarded police instructions and followed Trayvon Martin matters to the outcome of the case. Zimmerman claims that he only followed Trayvon to provide police with information on the youg man’s location. If the jury had instructions on the initial aggressor provision, it means they would have to decide whether Zimmerman was following Trayvon for that reason or if he did so for other reasons that would suggest that Zimmerman was the initial aggressor in the fight that led to Trayvon Martin’s death.

No wonder the defense fought with a distorted reading of precedent and fear words to keep the initial aggressor instruction out. When the court ruled in their favor, a not guilty verdict was all but guaranteed. If the jury concluded that Zimmerman was the initial aggressor, under the applicable law, Zimmerman wouldn’t have had the right to use lethal force based on the available facts. He could only have done so if he had at some point retreated from the fight, conveyed it and Trayvon either continued to use force against him or resumed it.

Zimmerman Jurors Was Misled About The Meaning of Florida's Self Defense Law

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

That relates to the issues in the courtroom, and I did watch that. She was aggressive before he even opened his mouth.

What I said related to "issues in the courtroom"? The post you just quoted? That's a really neat trick since they weren't in the courtroom back in March. Clearly you are not amenable to facts regarding this issue. So ... never mind.

OAW

[pooka]

Feigned outrage, endless handwringing, and ESPN style replays.

I'll violate rule whatever the **** it is you guys drop when linking to shit. I'm sure I'm overlooking the obvious agenda. In my opinion, the debate about this case is really, really dum. Some of the other issues that have been spurred by it, not so much. But dum is cool.

http://thecriminallawyer.tumblr.com/...thats-for-sure

[turtle777]

It's all about race pimping. Not realizing what a huge disservice they are doing to minorities by that.

-t

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Seriously. Did you even watch the interview with Juror B37 on Anderson Cooper's show at all? Because if you did I can't imagine how you would be making these inane comments when they simply aren't supported by what the woman actually said.

I did watch it. "Inane"? Oh, stop that.

First of all, this lady said that the jury was confused about the law. Particularly the jury instructions. And if you watched the trial live that's not surprising because the prosecution and defense argued over this very issue during the hearing immediately proceeding the closing arguments. Now with that as the backdrop she went on to say ....

In other words, the events that led up to the confrontation were IMMATERIAL by implication with this quoted statement and explicitly stated with subsequent statements she made.

The way that this juror equated these things is a testament to the fundamental injustice of this situation. But in any event, the point I'm trying to get across to you with her statements is that what the jurors BELIEVED had nothing to do with it. Just because the 3 who originally voted to convict "did a 180 in 17 hours" ... that's not an indication that they believed GZ's bullsh*t. Because his story DID. NOT. MATTER. Who was the aggressor DID. NOT. MATTER. Because Florida's extremely permissive self-defense laws says that the only thing that mattered was if GZ had a "reasonable fear of imminent death or grave bodily injury" IMMEDIATELY PRIOR to pulling the trigger. And while it is an affirmative defense the evidence threshold is very low. As in given the very "elastic standard" for reasonable doubt ... images of some minor injuries and a cockamamie story will suffice. Because the prosecution is forced to have to prove a negative beyond a reasonable doubt.

Everything that happened before the trigger was pulled ... whether he was lying or telling the truth ... DID. NOT. MATTER. Because the jury felt forced to disregard all of that given their interpretation of Florida law and the "confusing jury instructions". And so what we had was a situation where the jury believed that an armed man can pick a fight, take a few good licks, then pull out a gun and shoot an unarmed kid ... as long as there are no witnesses (including the dead victim) to contradict his claims of "fear". Which is INSANE.

OAW

I know we did, obviously, but for some reason I'm feeling we didn't watch the same interview at all. The impression I get is that you're picking at the fringes and ignoring the general picture. It's very strange.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by OAW 

What I said related to "issues in the courtroom"? The post you just quoted? That's a really neat trick since they weren't in the courtroom back in March. Clearly you are not amenable to facts regarding this issue. So ... never mind.

OAW

None of that mentioned March, you added that as a "feeling".

[Shaddim]

I get that you're frustrated, I see a lot of straw-grabbing and gnashing of teeth from different quarters.

I'm irritated that no one wants to talk about what happened to Trayvon to turn him into what he became. Why he was seemingly casing the neighborhood that night. Why he was out, stoned and alone, on other peoples' property. Why he attacked Zimmerman, getting on top of him and beating him (the neighbor saw that GZ was on the bottom).

I blame Zimmerman for not staying in his car, that was bad judgement, but I don't believe he started the fight itself.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

.I'm irritated that no one wants to talk about what happened to Trayvon to turn him into what he became.

Amen to that.

Alas, it seems too much to ask, because it would require honest self-reflection rather than constant blaming of the other side.

-t

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

None of that mentioned March, you added that as a "feeling".

Dude. "Even during our little back - since March." is a direct quote from Rachel Jeantel. Don't believe me? Follow the link.

OAW

[Chongo]

One question none of the talking heads on the networks have never asked, nor do I recall anyone here asking: In the four minutes between when TM last talked to RJ and when the altercation occurred, why didn't he call 911 to report there was a strange man following him?

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

One question none of the talking heads on the networks have never asked, nor do I recall anyone here asking: In the four minutes between when TM last talked to RT and when the altercation occurred, why didn't he call 911 to report there was a strange man following him?

Thats the nugget of it right there. They're trying to make it seem like Zim planned this murder out of racism; then why did he call the police before hand? At least he tried to get them out there, while TM didn't.

We'll never really know what happened, but the evidence we have doesn't support Zim having malicious intent. It only supports him being stupid. The most unfortunate thing with all this is the personal emotional attachment the nation seems to have with this case. Multiple people in each big city across the nation get shot, stabbed, poisoned, pushed off bridges, and beat to death every day and most middle-class never notice much less care. It would normally be written off as an everyday street fight.

This very normal street fight type violence has been turned into a battle-of-the-races side show by the naacp with the intent to tear the nation apart. I wonder how much donations went up for naacp due to this circus... oh wait no I don't. I mean all the energy people are pouring into this they could be going out - getting involved with their community and helping prevent violence and deaths before it happens. My guess is most people don't want to help people like TM before they die, because once they dig past all the race cards and get to the truth, people realize that MMA burglars, vandals, drug pushers, are pretty scary people.

[Shaddim]

Tension is higher here, that's for sure, I've never seen this much anti-black sentiment in my area before. It's pretty scary.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

And excerpt from an interesting article I came across further illustrates why the jury felt compelled to vote Not Guilty given the jury instructions they were given

I don't believe there was provocation at the point of altercation. Stay with me here a minute; what if racial animus toward the nosey white guy encouraged Trayvon to in fact confront Zimmerman?

Zimmerman was "spotting" Trayvon and attempting to report his whereabouts back to the police. If Trayvon had returned to his father's fiancee's house, employed a key to enter, and left the scene; Zimmerman would be standing there with his gun out and no one to shoot at. That's not what happened. If Trayvon had continued running to his father's fiancee's house and called the police after getting inside, Zimmerman would not have had anyone to kill. How would you advise your son? I would've advised any one of these two scenarios, well before the "confront the stalker" scenario we've come to know.

Following someone is not illegal and unless you've got a mighty large chip on your shoulder, it's no excuse to jack someone in the face knocking them to the ground, particularly when you don't know if the person you're turning to confront is armed or what they're up to. What the evidence suggested is that you had a kid amped up at the audacity of a man following him. Awfully amped up; to the extent that he would jack an armed man in the face. That's the evidence.

What confounds me most is the notion of racial animus when the only evidence available suggested Trayvon's racial animus toward Zimmerman. No one at all was talking about Niggaz or Crackers, that was all Martin and Jeantel -- period. We're being told that much of this mishap was due Zimmerman's (and white people in general) inability to understand the "black-condition" that Trayvon may have misunderstood Zimmerman, but maybe there are two sides to the story. There are "do-good" white folks that patrol their neighborhoods, particularly when there have been multiple break-ins and home intrusions and white folks snitch, tattle, and tell. They believe it's effective and it makes them annoyingly nosey. Let's try to understand one another...

If merely following someone is cause for getting jacked in the face, merely jacking someone in the face is cause for getting shot. If you're scared, flea. If you're not, you may turn to confront your "stalker", but at great risk. It's not how I'd advise my son and I dare say it's not how you'd advise your son. We seem to be missing a great lesson here.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

The most unfortunate thing with all this is the personal emotional attachment the nation seems to have with this case. Multiple people in each big city across the nation get shot, stabbed, poisoned, pushed off bridges, and beat to death every day and most middle-class never notice much less care. It would normally be written off as an everyday street fight.

I thought the reason for that was that the course of the investigation was actually influenced by public opinion. There wasn't going to be an arrest or trial until the public pressured them to do it. Once the public noticed that they could make this case interactive (even if they actually couldn't do anything more beyond that), they were hooked.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Tension is higher here, that's for sure, I've never seen this much anti-black sentiment in my area before. It's pretty scary.

I read from some of my Latino friends where they're now getting all amped up. Others talking about accompanying their daughters to school, etc...

It never ends. It can't. Indictments of racism and social injustice have become way too lucrative and its perfect for the cubicle mentality that needs fodder for distractions from and excuses for failures of another kind.

[el chupacabra]

Skimming through the thread I see ebuddy already addressed what I said above, or believe.

Personally I don't believe Zimmerman's story or Rachel's. It's impossible to know who is technically innocent here... if anyone. The nation needs to stop dwelling on it and channel their distaste of the situation to something more productive.

Racism will always exist to some point. But there is still something that can be done to lessen it. Instead of rallying up rage across the country about people you never met; people who truly care should sacrifice some of their valuable time to join some kind of community club(s). The easiest, join a church. Churches are all about organizing events across communities of varying classes around town. You want real desegregation and understanding between people of different cultures this is the way to do it. One is not expected to believe in religion/supernatural/Jesus/whatever the first day they sign up... or ever for that matter. The church is a lifelong spiritual quest that revolves around one thing, love your neighbor and all the community involvement that goes along with it.

[pooka]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I thought the reason for that was that the course of the investigation was actually influenced by public opinion. There wasn't going to be an arrest or trial until the public pressured them to do it. Once the public noticed that they could make this case interactive (even if they actually couldn't do anything more beyond that), they were hooked.

I smell a tv show here.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

One question none of the talking heads on the networks have never asked, nor do I recall anyone here asking: In the four minutes between when TM last talked to RT and when the altercation occurred, why didn't he call 911 to report there was a strange man following him?

Perhaps because that's not what the four minutes was about. GZ says on the 911 call "Oh sh*t he's running!" @ 7:11:40. Rachel Jeantel testified that she could hear an altercation between Martin and Zimmerman shortly before the phone cut off @ 7:15:43. That's the four minutes. Not sure what you are talking about?

In any event, the defense said that this was plenty of time for TM to get home. And that's true. So they argued that TM must not have been of afraid of GZ ... which is nonsensical because that means he took off running or as GZ told Hannity "skipping" for no damned reason. It also completely ignores Rachel Jeantel's testimony. TM told Rachel Jeantel that he thought he lost GZ when she called him back ... because remember their first call was disconnected. The question is what was TM doing in the interim? Just as there is the question of what was GZ doing in the two minutes after he hung up with 911 ostensibly to head back to his truck that was 20-30 seconds away?

Given the circumstances it seems fairly obvious that GZ was searching for the kid during his questionable two minutes. Remember first GZ told the dispatcher to have the police meet him at his truck. But then he switched up and said "Actually could you have them call me and I'll tell them where I'm at?" So GZ went looking for the kid and TM was trying to lose him by hiding. Because the last thing TM would have wanted to do was lead the "creepy" dude back to where he was staying. That's just common sense. Even GZ was wary of giving out his home address to the 911 dispatcher because he didn't know where TM was and was concerned about him overhearing. Once TM thought he lost GZ then he continued on his way. By then Rachel Jeantel had called him back. GZ found him because after all he never went back to his truck that was only 20-30 seconds away at a normal pace ... and per his own words in the re-enactment he said "When I walked towards him ...". Next thing you know TM exclaimed "Oh sh*t .. the n*gga is behind me!" to Rachel Jeantel. TM turned around and asked why GZ was following him. GZ demanded to know what TM was doing around there. Rachel Jeantel heard a bump and TM's bluetooth headset fell into the grass. Because GZ "wannabe cop" tried to detain TM when he had no authority to do so. And got a punch in the face in response. Because TM had every right to defend himself from some "creepy" dude putting his hands on him like that.

Or alternatively, one can buy into the borderline retarded narrative that a kid running away in fear one minute all of a sudden decided to morph into "Super Thug" the next.

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Why he was seemingly casing the neighborhood that night.

And that right there is the freaking problem. A black kid walking down the street in the rain at 7 PM is "casing the neighborhood" to those who share your mentality.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Why he was out, stoned and alone, on other peoples' property.

Complete, unadulterated BS! First of all the autopsy found trace amounts of marijuana in his system. Any everybody knows trace amounts of THC can stay in your system for a long time. People get burned everyday on drug tests that find trace amounts and even when it's been months since they last smoked. To suggest that TM was "stoned" given the levels found in his system that night is akin to suggesting that someone was "drunk" if they had a beer two days earlier and there was still trace amounts of alcohol in them.

Furthermore, at no point ... I repeat ... at no point did GZ ever say TM was "on other people's property" during the 911 call. He said "It's raining and he's just walking around looking about".

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Why he attacked Zimmerman, getting on top of him and beating him (the neighbor saw that GZ was on the bottom).

See my post above.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I blame Zimmerman for not staying in his car, that was bad judgement, but I don't believe he started the fight itself.

Because you'd rather presume criminality on the part of a dead unarmed black kid who's not around to tell his side of the story while ....

A. Ignoring GZ's own words of "f*cking punks" and "these a*sholes ... they always get away" that speak to his state of mind that evening.

B. Ignoring that GZ was proven to be a liar in open court yet you still take him at his word and his word alone that TM was the aggressor.

C. Ignoring the testimony of Rachel Jeantel who said GZ came up to TM, she heard a bump, his headset fell into the wet grass, and then she heard TM yelling "Get off! Get Off!"

Do I think TM threw the first punch? Absolutely. Even Rachel Jeantel has said that. But do I also think that GZ grabbed TM and tried to detain him so he wouldn't "get away" given the evidence and testimony? You're damn skippy! So no ... TM wasn't the one who "started the fight itself". The fight was started when GZ put his hands on TM ... hence the reason he yelled "Get off! Get off!"

TM was acting in self-defense. And because GZ was carrying a gun that he was willing to use after punch to the face and bit of a wrestling match an unarmed kid is dead.

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I don't believe there was provocation at the point of altercation .....

Rather than repeat what I said in a direct reply to you please see my posts immediately above. There you will see why TM did not go straight home and what the provocation was. In order to believe that GZ didn't provoke TM then logically one would have to completely disregard Rachel Jeantel's testimony regarding their encounter. After all, she is the only witness (besides GZ who didn't take the stand) to the events that transpired between the two of them at the beginning of the altercation. One would essentially have to dismiss TM yelling "Get off! Get off!" as a figment of her imagination in order to hold this view.

OAW

[OAW]

And as for Shaddim's "The juror herself said they believed GZ's story." contention ....

Four of the six jurors from the murder trial of neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman have distanced themselves from statements another juror made in a televised interview.

The four jurors issued a brief statement Tuesday on court stationery saying the opinions expressed by Juror B37 to CNN's Anderson Cooper are not representative of their views.

"The opinions of Juror B37, expressed on the Anderson Cooper show were her own, and not in any way representative of the jurors listed below," said the statement, signed by Jurors B51, B76, E6 and E40.

Other Jurors Distance Themselves From Juror B37 - ABC News

OAW

[subego]

I get a CYA vibe from that.

I'd consider signing that letter even if I agreed with B37. I don't need death threats.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by OAW 

And that right there is the freaking problem. A black kid walking down the street in the rain at 7 PM is "casing the neighborhood" to those who share your mentality.

and with good reason, as there had numerous break-ins in the area, and "some guy" was wandering the neighborhood, off the road, looking around other peoples' property. If he wasn't casing the places, WTF was going on? I don't believe he was minding his own business, and I would have thought the same thing as GZ.

"My mentality"? You mean where I don't adhere to PC BS and actually view statistics and come to logical conclusions? Yeah, that does get in the way sometimes.

Complete, unadulterated BS! First of all the autopsy found trace amounts of marijuana in his system. Any everybody knows trace amounts of THC can stay in your system for a long time. People get burned everyday on drug tests that find trace amounts and even when it's been months since they last smoked. To suggest that TM was "stoned" given the levels found in his system that night is akin to suggesting that someone was "drunk" if they had a beer two days earlier and there was still trace amounts of alcohol in them.

Hogwash. It will stay in fatty tissues for a long time if you're a heavy smoker, but for a blood screen to show THC, there has to be a lot of THC in his system. This isn't like opiates or cocaine.

Furthermore, at no point ... I repeat ... at no point did GZ ever say TM was "on other people's property" during the 911 call. He said "It's raining and he's just walking around looking about".

He did, actually, he said Martin was "cutting across properties".

See my post above.

See mine.

Because you'd rather presume criminality on the part of a dead unarmed black kid who's not around to tell his side of the story while ....

That's right, I'm racist, go ahead and get it out. Truck that scapegoat right here.

A. Ignoring GZ's own words of "f*cking punks" and "these a*sholes ... they always get away" that speak to his state of mind that evening.

Yep, being robbed and seeing your neighbors robbed constantly while the police fail to follow-up is frustrating.

B. Ignoring that GZ was proven to be a liar in open court yet you still take him at his word and his word alone that TM was the aggressor.

Except that his neighbor saw him on the bottom getting beaten.

C. Ignoring the testimony of Rachel Jeantel who said GZ came up to TM, she heard a bump, his headset fell into the wet grass, and then she heard TM yelling "Get off! Get Off!"

Right, because she never backtracked or changed her story AT ALL and was entirely believable.

Do I think TM threw the first punch? Absolutely. Even Rachel Jeantel has said that. But do I also think that GZ grabbed TM and tried to detain him so he wouldn't "get away" given the evidence and testimony? You're damn skippy! So no ... TM wasn't the one who "started the fight itself". The fight was started when GZ put his hands on TM ... hence the reason he yelled "Get off! Get off!"

GZ was yelling "get off", I don't believe that was Martin.

TM was acting in self-defense. And because GZ was carrying a gun that he was willing to use after punch to the face and bit of a wrestling match an unarmed kid is dead.

I suppose you have to believe that, otherwise you'd have to look at the probability that Martin was a dangerous thug.

And as for Shaddim's "The juror herself said they believed GZ's story." contention ....

How does that make my statement incorrect? She DID say those things, and these jurors didn't refute her, they simply don't want to draw a larger set of crosshairs on their backs and potentially be murdered when their anonymity eventually gets broken. Although I think that's somewhat cowardly, I can understand why they're afraid.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Rather than repeat what I said in a direct reply to you please see my posts immediately above. There you will see why TM did not go straight home and what the provocation was. In order to believe that GZ didn't provoke TM then logically one would have to completely disregard Rachel Jeantel's testimony regarding their encounter. After all, she is the only witness (besides GZ who didn't take the stand) to the events that transpired between the two of them at the beginning of the altercation. One would essentially have to dismiss TM yelling "Get off! Get off!" as a figment of her imagination in order to hold this view.

OAW

I don't believe he was yelling that, I think she either fabricated that part or wanted to believe it was him after other people twisted events around.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I don't believe he was yelling that, I think she either fabricated that part or wanted to believe it was him after other people twisted events around.

Not to mention the fact that GZ stating; "that doesn't even sound like me" was supposedly uber-damning evidence, but the fact that TMs dad didn't recognize his son's voice was... more ignored evidence apparently.

[Chongo]

I still think Rachel Jeantel had a hand in goading Trayvon Martin into confronting George Zimmerman. Even my "Yellow Dog" brother said it had to have been more than "Run Trayvon, Run"

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Apparently it wasn't a very strong feeling if they back away from it that quickly.

Or maybe they decided their conclusion didn't mesh with the law needing the evidence to be beyond a reasonable doubt?

People have been rightfully chastised for acting like they know what happened that night and here you are being clairvoyant about the jurors. The irony.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I'm much closer to being the person I was 3 months ago than I am to my 33 y/o self (10 years back), you are too.

Is this a scientific fact or a personal feeling? Does it have any standing in a courtroom?

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I'm irritated that no one wants to talk about what happened to Trayvon to turn him into what he became. Why he was seemingly casing the neighborhood that night. Why he was out, stoned and alone, on other peoples' property. Why he attacked Zimmerman, getting on top of him and beating him (the neighbor saw that GZ was on the bottom).

Good lord, is this a giant troll?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

I still think Rachel Jeantel had a hand in goading Trayvon Martin into confronting George Zimmerman.

Jeantel conspired with Zimmerman the whole time, to get Martin out of the picture so they could start their new life together. It explains Zimmerman's insufferable bravado through the whole ordeal; he knew she was going to throw the trial for him.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Breakdown of the killings: The figures represent the percentage likelihood that the deaths will be found justifiable compared to white-on-white killings

I realize I'm hitting this late, but it'd nice to see a second analysis done by economic level. Just incase part of it can be explained by having really good lawyers (or crappy public defenders).

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Jeantel conspired with Zimmerman the whole time, to get Martin out of the picture so they could start their new life together. It explains Zimmerman's insufferable bravado through the whole ordeal; he knew she was going to throw the trial for him.

I can see it. Finally, everything is falling into place.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Or maybe they decided their conclusion didn't mesh with the law needing the evidence to be beyond a reasonable doubt?

People have been rightfully chastised for acting like they know what happened that night and here you are being clairvoyant about the jurors. The irony.

I'm going by what the juror said. I understand that your political disposition pushes you in a certain direction, but the words actually came out of her mouth.

Is this a scientific fact or a personal feeling? Does it have any standing in a courtroom?

Recent behavior has frequently been allowed in the past, if it shows a pattern leading up to incident.

Good lord, is this a giant troll?

No, most of the time it's the elephant in the room.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I realize I'm hitting this late, but it'd nice to see a second analysis done by economic level. Just incase part of it can be explained by having really good lawyers (or crappy public defenders).

Also one showing Hispanic on Black, Hispanic on Hispanic, and Black on Hispanic.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

and with good reason, as there had numerous break-ins in the area, and "some guy" was wandering the neighborhood, off the road, looking around other peoples' property.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

He did, actually, he said Martin was "cutting across properties".

I suggest you review the 911 call transcript again. He NEVER said that or anything of the sort. When he was on the phone. In the moment. Describing his observations. That is not my OPINION ....that is a FACT. The stuff you are talking about was only added when the police were interviewing him AFTER he had already shot the kid.

When he had every incentive to change his story because his ass was on the line!

At that point he had to manufacture a narrative to justify his actions. And it kept changing. With every subsequent telling he kept adding more supposed actions on the part of TM to make him appear more "suspicious" and "threatening". And that's why the 911 tape says ....

GZ: It's raining and he's just walking around looking about.

Dispatcher: Ok, he's just walking around the area ...

GZ: Looking at all the houses.

But then on his written statement he changed his story to ...

Originally Posted by GZ

Tonight, I was on my way to the grocery store when I saw a male approximately 5'11" to 6'2" casually walking in the rain looking into homes.

Now where you get this "wandering the neighborhood" crap is beyond me. Because GZ never said that on neither the 911 tape nor his written statement. In any event, notice how "looking about", and "looking at" gets changed to "looking into". Because the first two are what anybody does walking down the street minding their own business. They "look at" their surroundings. Whereas "looking into" gives the IMPRESSION that TM went "off the road" ... even though he never said that for the record ... and was peeking into windows. Again, GZ had some 'splainin' to do! In NEITHER the 911 tape NOR his written statement did GZ ever talk about TM "cutting across properties". That got added during his re-enactment.

Again, steadily attributing actions to TM that he never mentioned earlier in order to justify his actions.

Like TM supposedly CIRCLING HIS CAR after he initially fled which GZ NEVER mentioned on the 911 tape. That first appeared in his written statement. Now this is what he said on the 911 tape ....

GZ: Okay. These a*sholes they always get away. When you come to the clubhouse you come straight in and make a left. Actually you would go past the clubhouse.

Dispatcher: So it's on the lefthand side from the clubhouse?

GZ: No you go in straight through the entrance and then you make a left...uh you go straight in, don't turn, and make a left. Sh*t he's running. (2:07)

Dispatcher: He's running? Which way is he running? (2:08)

::::: This is when GZ exits his vehicle. Door chimes and all. ::::::::: (2:10)

GZ: Down towards the other entrance to the neighborhood.

Dispatcher: Which entrance is that that he's heading towards?

GZ: The back entrance... f*cking punks.

Dispatcher: Are you following him? (2:24)

GZ: Yeah

Dispatcher: Ok, we don't need you to do that. (2:26)

But in his written statement he said this ....

Originally Posted by GZ

I told the dispatcher what I had witnessed, the dispatcher took note of my location, and the suspect fled to a darkened area of the sidewalk. As the dispatcher was asking me for an exact location the suspect emerged from the darkness and circled my vehicle. I could not hear if he said anything. The suspect once again disappeared behind the back of some houses. The dispatcher once again asked me for my exact location. I could not remember the name of the street so I got out of my car to look for a street sign and the direction the suspect went. The dispatcher asked me for a description and the direction the suspect went and I told the dispatcher I did not know but I was out of my vehicle looking for a street sign and the direction the suspect went. The dispatcher told me not to follow the suspect and that an officer was in route.

Now in between the blue statements is when TM took off running and GZ exited his vehicle. But go ahead and listen to the 911 tape yourself. You'll see the times I put in the 911 tape quote above are accurate. TM takes off running and 3 seconds later GZ is out of his car going after him. Yet in his written statement he claims all the events in purple happened in those few seconds. So I submit that ANYBODY who believes that BS is a f*cking idiot! Yeah. I said it.

Furthermore, everything he said in red is a complete fabrication! Let's count the ways. 1) the dispatcher did NOT ask for a "description" at that time, and he NEVER "told the dispatcher I did not know but I was out of my vehicle looking for a street sign and the direction the suspect went." because 2) he NEVER said he did not know which way TM went, 3) he NEVER said he was out of the vehicle because the dispatcher had to ASK if GZ was following him, 4) he NEVER said he was looking for a street sign, and 5) the 911 tape shows he had ALREADY TOLD HIM that TM ran off towards "the bank entrance".

Again, it is blatantly obvious that GZ is lying here ... but apparently that still doesn't register with you. So either you are being willfully obtuse or you actually know better but you're more inclined to presume "criminality" or "suspicious behavior" nevertheless on the part of TM based solely on the shifting narrative of a proven liar.

OAW

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by OAW 

I suggest you review the 911 call transcript again. He NEVER said that or anything of the sort. When he was on the phone. In the moment. Describing his observations. That is not my OPINION ....that is a FACT. The stuff you are talking about was only added when the police were interviewing him AFTER he had already shot the kid.

When he had every incentive to change his story because his ass was on the line!

At that point he had to manufacture a narrative to justify his actions. And it kept changing. With every subsequent telling he kept adding more supposed actions on the part of TM to make him appear more "suspicious" and "threatening". And that's why the 911 tape says ....



But then on his written statement he changed his story to ...



Now where you get this "wandering the neighborhood" crap is beyond me. Because GZ never said that on neither the 911 tape nor his written statement. In any event, notice how "looking about", and "looking at" gets changed to "looking into". Because the first two are what anybody does walking down the street minding their own business. They "look at" their surroundings. Whereas "looking into" gives the IMPRESSION that TM went "off the road" ... even though he never said that for the record ... and was peeking into windows. Again, GZ had some 'splainin' to do! In NEITHER the 911 tape NOR his written statement did GZ ever talk about TM "cutting across properties". That got added during his re-enactment.

Which he said at the first questioning. You're upset that he didn't say that on the phone, but a lot was going on and he likely didn't state everything that was happening. He'd never been trained to relay information and that's difficult to do under pressure, and it isn't easy to recall everything perfectly and in the right sequence, especially when you find it difficult to speak to strangers. I know because I've been there and seen it happen firsthand.

I think you want/need for him to be a liar, especially a very good one (so good that he duped the PD detectives), but it doesn't fit. Either he's good enough to fool seasoned professionals and gets the facts right, or he doesn't and makes a jumbled mess of things, the alternative is highly unlikely.

"What would you say if I told you we have video of the incident?"
"Thank God! I was hoping someone did." *complete, spontaneous look of relief*

Again, it is blatantly obvious that GZ is lying here ... but apparently that still doesn't register with you. So either you are being willfully obtuse or you actually know better but you're more inclined to presume "criminality" or "suspicious behavior" nevertheless on the part of TM based solely on the shifting narrative of a proven liar.

Again, I believe there are some things that you feel you need to believe.