Trayvon Martin Case

Didn't watch trial. Sounds and reads like defense attorneys did an excellent job of taking what seemed to be an open and shut manslaughter (or 2nd degree murder) case, and bringing reasonable doubt. Thought, based on what I've read, the jurors ruled properly.

I don't really know what the burden of proof a self-defense case is, but the statistical evidence on conviction rates would suggest that Trayvon Martin being black was probably the difference here. Weird to live in a world where killing a un-armed teen can be at least argued as self defense. Feels like the law was fairly subjective: you CAN kill, so long as you fear (for your life, for your health, safety). Fear of course, is an abstraction. The defense painted a dead, unarmed teenager as something that someone in Zimmerman's position could be fearful of and kill.

Council of the defendant needs to work on their jokes. It's just wasn't happening for them.

I did not see any actual reason to believe that the defendant was ever in any real danger prior to the physical altercation with Martin. During the altercation, maybe I can buy that. It does take two parties to brawl. To me, I think the law should error on the side of the person who didn't own/possess a weapon, but that's just my opinion and some see justice in killing an unarmed person.

This was a weird case, to be sure. Police didn't want to press charges at all, and the prosecution's star witness (Trayvon Martin) was killed by the defendant. That's always going to skew a case, I think. I've always said that history gets written by the winners, and since Martin lost the altercation, that also gives a lot of credibility to Zimmerman's story when no one is around to contradict it (the eye-witnesses did not seem to have any role in the case except to add doses of reasonable doubt).

Zimmerman wanted to play out his fantasy and be a tough guy cop. He engaged Martin, then got his ass beat by a 17 year and shot him. The kid was doing nothing wrong. If Zimmerman saw him breaking into a house then fine, but that simply was not the case. He got away with murder. Plain and simple. The jury should be ashamed of themselves.Your statement is so "plain and simple" on practically everything except "engaged". What does "engaged" mean in your statement?

Who started the fight is one of the key issues. Again, if someone here actually knows what happened, they should call CNN immediately.

DOJ urged to press civil rights charges against Zimmerman (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/news/zimmerman-civil-rights-charges-142917019.html)

I think I abhor Jessie Jackson with a passion.

Why, because he wants the feds to charge Zimmerman?

Prediction: Zimmerman murdered within 3 months.

Your prediction record is .....shall we say 0 And 10.

Zimmerman wanted to play out his fantasy and be a tough guy cop. He engaged Martin, then got his ass beat by a 17 year and shot him. The kid was doing nothing wrong. If Zimmerman saw him breaking into a house then fine, but that simply was not the case. He got away with murder. Plain and simple. The jury should be ashamed of themselves.

There was never, ever a showing beyond a reasonable doubt who turned an aggressive verbal confrontation into a physical altercation. Also, because of the presumption of innocence, every assumption and presumption not countered by direct evidence or circumstantial evidence must be found assumed or presumed in Zimmerman's favor. The jury clearly took the charges of "presumption of innocence" and "proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" very seriously. They should in be commended.

Your statement is so "plain and simple" on practically everything except "engaged". What does "engaged" mean in your statement?

Who started the fight is one of the key issues. Again, if someone here actually knows what happened, they should call CNN immediately.If the prosecution had made a better case, it shouldn't have mattered who started the fight. The open/shut nature of the case is because of the way the fight ended. How the fight began is simply not a newsworthy national event. It's semantics. You can just say "they fought" and the facts of the case are unchanged.

GZ was acquitted because his team of lawyers was able to make Trayvon Martin's death a footnote in a series of semantics. They decided a 17 year old's life was collateral damage to Zimmerman's perception of the events.

There was never, ever a showing beyond a reasonable doubt who turned an aggressive verbal confrontation into a physical altercation. Also, because of the presumption of innocence, every assumption and presumption not countered by direct evidence or circumstantial evidence must be found assumed or presumed in Zimmerman's favor. The jury clearly took the charges of "presumption of innocence" and "proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" very seriously. They should in be commended.Seems like semantics, which I think is the fault of the prosecution.

The whole thing reminds me of the "Han Solo shot Greedo first (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_shot_first)" contention.

The HO Assoc. has already settled for an undisclosed amount thought to be in excess of $1M.

Trayvon Martin Family Settles with Homeowners Assn. For Over $1M - Atlanta Black Star (http://atlantablackstar.com/2013/04/06/trayvon-martin-family-settles-with-homeowners-assoc-for-more-than-1-mil/)

Well they win, because no verdict could bring Trayvonn back. Hahahah Home Owners Association getting soaked because of a self appointed Neighborhood watchman. I bet they cuss his name every time they get the bill. Not like they live in a well to do area.

Didn't watch trial. Sounds and reads like defense attorneys did an excellent job of taking what seemed to be an open and shut manslaughter (or 2nd degree murder) case, and bringing reasonable doubt. Thought, based on what I've read, the jurors ruled properly.

I don't really know what the burden of proof a self-defense case is, but the statistical evidence on conviction rates would suggest that Trayvon Martin being black was probably the difference here. Weird to live in a world where killing a un-armed teen can be at least argued as self defense. Feels like the law was fairly subjective: you CAN kill, so long as you fear (for your life, for your health, safety). Fear of course, is an abstraction. The defense painted a dead, unarmed teenager as something that someone in Zimmerman's position could be fearful of and kill.

Council of the defendant needs to work on their jokes. It's just wasn't happening for them.

I did not see any actual reason to believe that the defendant was ever in any real danger prior to the physical altercation with Martin. During the altercation, maybe I can buy that. It does take two parties to brawl. To me, I think the law should error on the side of the person who didn't own/possess a weapon, but that's just my opinion and some see justice in killing an unarmed person.

This was a weird case, to be sure. Police didn't want to press charges at all, and the prosecution's star witness (Trayvon Martin) was killed by the defendant. That's always going to skew a case, I think. I've always said that history gets written by the winners, and since Martin lost the altercation, that also gives a lot of credibility to Zimmerman's story when no one is around to contradict it (the eye-witnesses did not seem to have any role in the case except to add doses of reasonable doubt).

I agree with you on this.

If the prosecution had made a better case, it shouldn't have mattered who started the fight. The open/shut nature of the case is because of the way the fight ended. How the fight began is simply not a newsworthy national event. It's semantics. You can just say "they fought" and the facts of the case are unchanged.

GZ was acquitted because his team of lawyers was able to make Trayvon Martin's death a footnote in a series of semantics. They decided a 17 year old's life was collateral damage to Zimmerman's perception of the events.

It is not semantics to say you cannot be the first to throw a punch.

What you and others call "semantics", I call law and burden of proof.