Zimmerman Trial Poll -- June 26 edition

[WhipperSnapper]

After today's testimony from Dee Dee, will Zimmerman be found guilty or not guilty?

The evidence that we now have:

*Trayvon was close to home and could have gone inside.

*Trayvon could have easily outrun Zimmerman if Zimmerman had tried to jump him (the guy played middle school football and seemed to be in decent physical condition based on height/weight).

*Travyon used racial slurs while talking to Dee Dee, including referring to Zimmerman by the N-word and the racial slur "cracka". This suggests that Trayvon himself was not an innocent pure child, but may himself have had racial hatred and a desire for confrontation.

*Trayvon may have had a propensity for fighting since Dee Dee referred to the altercation as "just another fight", suggesting that Trayvon had been in fights before.

*One of the parties was on top of the other one punching.

*No punch bruises were found on Trayvon's body.

*Zimmerman had been punched in the nose and had lacerations on the back of his head.

---In summary, it almost looks like Trayvon decided to confront Zimmerman and initiated the fight when he could have just gone in the house and called the police.

As of today, do you think Zimmerman will be found innocent or guilty?

As the poll is closed, and no discussion of the poll is occurring, but rather, the same discussion that's occurring in the other thread, I suggest everyone head over there. BTW, yet another member has been banned for 2 weeks for racist posts in that other thread, so please, think before clicking save. -Admin DrPizza

 

[Fern]

Based on the evidence as of today I think he should be found not guilty.

However, this is a Florida court, so all bets are off.

Fern

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

"Innocent" is not a possible outcome, at least in the American adversarial system. He is either guilty or not guilty. He will be found not guilty.

 

[2timer]

Wow, what a one-sided and slanted OP. Hopefully, we'll get a balanced view of the facts in further posts.

One thing that stood out in my mind from the court today: witness Jane Surdyka heard what she believed was a "boy's voice" crying for help:

http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/06/26/3471001/first-eyewitness-testifies-in.html

 

[nextJin]

Pretty sure I called this entire thing ages ago, fairly common sense what happened here.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

One thing that stood out in my mind from the court today: witness Jane Surdyka heard what she believed was a "boy's voice" crying for help:

Sadly that completely contradicts the evidence--it would be more believable if Trayvon had punch bruises and a broken nose and head lacerations.

 

[MagickMan]

All those choices and none are accurate. Guilty of a lesser charge, most likely manslaughter.

 

[Doppel]

innocent, second choice is hung jury but no way in hell he's found guilty. Strong leaning on innocent, though.

 

[MagickMan]

Wow, what a one-sided and slanted OP. Hopefully, we'll get a balanced view of the facts in further posts.

What parts of it were factually inaccurate?

 

[They Live]

All those choices and none are accurate. Guilty of a lesser charge, most likely manslaughter.

This is exactly what will happen.

 

[Doppel]

This is exactly what will happen.

How? The jury can't decide this unless he's charged with it. Will the prosecution withdraw and press for that?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Is Manslaughter one of the charges being leveled against him or just 2nd Degree Murder? I'm under the impression that only 2nd Degree Murder was at issue.

 

[Vic Vega]

This is exactly what will happen.

lol no

 

[papadage]

All lesser charges are included under the merger doctrine as lesser included offenses. The jury can be instructed to convict for the specific charge on the indictment, and also given the elements of each lesser charge so that they can convict him of one of those instead. Standard procedure for every state in the union.

 

[Anarchist420]

I answered hung jury because there is one black lady as a juror.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

I answered hung jury because there is one black lady as a juror.

Wouldn't she be an alternate?

 

[They Live]

I answered hung jury because there is one black lady as a juror.

She's "black hispanic" I believe.

 

[EagleKeeper]

What parts of it were factually inaccurate?

Look at who you quoted

 

[2timer]

What parts of it were factually inaccurate?

Absolutely, happy to answer you.

First of all, I didn't say OP's post was "factually inaccurate," that was a mistake on your part. I said the OP was one-sided and slanted. How so? Let's see:

1. George Zimmerman was also very close to his home. George Zimmerman could also have chosen to leave and go home, but OP has a point to prove, so he leaves that out.

2. There was no reason why Trayvon Martin should run from George Zimmerman. In fact, knowing George Zimmerman's repeated history of frustration and zealotry, and his aggravated mindset (cursing at strangers he doesn't know), it's very probable that Trayvon running could've provoked either further profiling and danger, or a "predatory response" from the armed adult. Trayvon Martin had every right to continue walking and not run away.

3. If Rachel Jeantel is now a credible and upright witness to you since she said "cracka," then she is also credible and upright when she says George Zimmerman was following Trayvon Martin. Which one is it - credible or not?

I could keep going, but I figure I've answered your question already.

 

[2timer]

Sadly that completely contradicts the evidence--it would be more believable if Trayvon had punch bruises and a broken nose and head lacerations.

Are you retarded?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

1. George Zimmerman was also very close to his home. George Zimmerman could also have chosen to leave and go home, but OP has a point to prove, so he leaves that out.

You completely missed the point. No one is disputing that Zimmerman left his truck. The point was that Martin also played a role in intentionally provoking the confrontation. In other words, what he did (not going into the house and calling the police) is almost as bad as what Zimmerman did. In other words, Martin may not have been as pure as the wind-driven snow.

2. There was no reason why Trayvon Martin should run from George Zimmerman. In fact, knowing George Zimmerman's repeated history of frustration and zealotry, and his aggravated mindset (cursing at strangers he doesn't know), it's very probable that Trayvon running could've provoked either further profiling and danger, or a "predatory response" from the armed adult. Trayvon Martin had every right to continue walking and not run away.

And Zimmerman had every right to approach someone and ask him a question (it's not illegal).

The point is that, knowing that Zimmerman was following him, and given that Martin was on his way home anyway, Martin sought out confrontation by failing to go inside.

3. If Rachel Jeantel is now a credible and upright witness to you since she said "cracka," then she is also credible and upright when she says George Zimmerman was following Trayvon Martin. Which one is it - credible or not?

Jeantel's bias is in favor of Martin and against that of Zimmerman. So, if she presents facts that are favorable to the defense--if she contradicts her bias--they have a higher degree of credibility.

If the Prosecution wants to try to impeach her credibility as to the testimony that is favorable to Zimmerman, that's up to the Prosecution.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by 2timer
One thing that stood out in my mind from the court today: witness Jane Surdyka heard what she believed was a "boy's voice" crying for help:

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper Sadly that completely contradicts the evidence--it would be more believable if Trayvon had punch bruises and a broken nose and head lacerations.

Are you retarded?

How so? We have less reliable testimonial evidence from a witness who may have been influenced by all the media surrounding the case (she said on the stand that she had never heard Trayvon's or Zimmerman's voices before prior to the incident--was shown on the national nightly news) versus more concrete physical evidence.

Which should hold more weight? Physical evidence or questionable testimony?

Are you retarded?

 

[EagleKeeper]

TM crowd: Emotion trumps evidence.

Martin at the house, possibly dumps his stash ,(7/11) and heads north to confront Zimmerman.
Shadows create multiple images that a person sees out of corner of eyes.

If Tracy or Brandy get on stand, they should be asked why they thought Martin was home. Supports DeeDee statement of she thought Martin was at house. West/MOM should press on this detail. Emphasis on Martin was safe and went looking for trouble. Push Dee Dee on "another fight". Evidence of bloodlust by Martin.

 

[2timer]

The point was that Martin also played a role in intentionally provoking the confrontation.

Which he did after George Zimmerman had cursed him, left his truck, and didn't announce himself nor his intent clearly.

George didn't follow the protocol of neighborhood watch that was taught by Wendy Dorival, the neighborhood watch advisor.

Guy asked Dorival what the handouts and her instructions tell volunteers to do if they begin following a suspicious person.

“We tell them they don’t do that. That’s the job of law enforcement,” she replied.

The same instructions apply to confronting a suspicious person, Dorival said. She said her presentation would advise people, “Not to confront, to let … the police department do the job.

“They’re not supposed to take matters into their own hands. … Let law enforcement take the risk of approaching a suspect,” Dorival said.

Martin may not have been as pure as the wind-driven snow.

And I never mean to suggest he was. But the facts of the case will show, George Zimmerman initiated the conflict, and by his reckless and irresponsible actions, he is ultimately responsible for Trayvon Martin's death, and should go to prison.

And Zimmerman had every right to approach someone and ask him a question (it's not illegal)

George did not approach Trayvon Martin in the manner to ask a question. By his own words, he lumped him together mistakenly with the "assholes and punks" who burglarized a home. George Zimmerman didn't shoot Trayvon Martin because he had to. George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin because he wanted to. Exactly like prosecutor John Guy said in his opening statement. This case is a slam dunk for the prosecution.

The point is that, knowing that Zimmerman was following him, and given that Martin was on his way home anyway, Martin sought out confrontation by failing to go inside.

Ha ha. Good one! 🙂

Sources:
http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-76442031/

 

[EagleKeeper]

The moment Martin was in a safe zone, actions of both prior become immaterial. Now Martin is the stalker/aggressor.

Zimmerman did nothing to stop Martin from getting home.

Martin also shows no fear; he prepares himself for battle and an easy victory.