Trayvon Martin

[PJ_Soul]

The Rutgers case where the gay roommate threw himself off the GW bridge and he was convicted of a hate crime. The media reported a ton of untrue stuff and created a witch-hunt. It wouldn't even had been a case without the media push and furor they created by releasing false information. Go review the facts from the trial and judge for yourself, but if that kid got convicted on a hate crime based on his past, I should probably be locked up in a super-max prison right now for my childhood (it was a simpler time).

what part of the trial and verdict do you think was problematic? ... and is it your contention the exposure of this case and media focus is the reason why the trial went as it did?

I don't think it would have been a case at all without the attention. The media reported false information and him and that girl were labeled as monsters. Bullying and homophobia are hot topics and the media jumped all over it. These two became poster-childs for those two issues. I thought they should have been locked up based on what I was told at the time.

As for the trial, how is a juror supposed to ignore the suicide? Why would they be there if it wasn't for the suicide? And based on available evidence to the public, why was he convicted as guilty? But I wasn't on the jury so I don't know for sure.

Anyway, this is for another thread entirely.

I don't think there is anything wrong with the media calling attention to an event and that leading to charges. That just means that they covered something that required attention by the police. I'm all for that, actually. If it takes the media to highlight a crime before the law gets involved, then the media is doing a good job. Many people who are getting screwed turn to the media in order to draw attention to their trouble; unfortunately, that is sometimes what it takes for a case to get the attention from the legal system that it DESERVES. That is not at all the same as the media coverage determining the outcome of a trial.

The media certainly shouldn't be distorting facts, i.e. editing phone transcripts. But that kind of thing doesn't make it into the court room. By the time it goes to court, any lies made up by the media have obviously been weeded out - the prosecution and the defense make sure of that. Not like lawyers use news reports as evidence in court!

[Jason P]

i, for the most part, feel that it is the media's responsibility to bring attention to cases ... obviously, falsifying information or distorting it is absolutely wrong but without the media ... trayvon martin would not get his day in court ... his family would just be left with a dead member ...

I agree that it is the media's responsibility but do it for the right reasons, like a stupid law that got this guy off the hook. Don't lie and incite people. And admit it when you do.

[81]

i, for the most part, feel that it is the media's responsibility to bring attention to cases ... obviously, falsifying information or distorting it is absolutely wrong but without the media ... trayvon martin would not get his day in court ... his family would just be left with a dead member ...

I agree that it is the media's responsibility but do it for the right reasons, like a stupid law that got this guy off the hook. Don't lie and incite people. And admit it when you do.

it's not a stupid law......

[Monster Rain]

The problem with the media distorting facts in order to achieve what they consider justice is that even though the edited evidence and lies reported won't be presented in court, they will skew public opinion in order to create public outrage and pressure prosecutors to file charges even when they feel they shouldn't (or at least feel as though they don't' have enough evidence to win) and it also makes it harder to find an unbiased jury. It may not make it impossible to find an unbiased jury, but it makes it harder than it should be and in the end you never really know for sure that none of the jurors had any sort of bias. It's not like they're hooked up to lie detectors when they are selected. Does anyone really think that the OJ jury was completely unbiased? In that case, it worked the other way around (his positive public image worked in his favor) but it can just as easily work the other way around if the defendant has a negative image.

edit: I just want to add that I really hope that this case ends up having a fair trial (it'll probably wind up being held in another county due to the intense public reaction there) and I hope that the verdict reflects the truth no matter what that may be.

[PJ_Soul]

The problem with the media distorting facts in order to achieve what they consider justice is that even though the edited evidence and lies reported won't be presented in court, they will skew public opinion in order to create public outrage and pressure prosecutors to file charges even when they feel they shouldn't (or at least feel as though they don't' have enough evidence to win) and it also makes it harder to find an unbiased jury. It may not make it impossible to find an unbiased jury, but it makes it harder than it should be and in the end you never really know for sure that none of the jurors had any sort of bias. It's not like they're hooked up to lie detectors when they are selected. Does anyone really think that the OJ jury was completely unbiased? In that case, it worked the other way around (his positive public image worked in his favor) but it can just as easily work the other way around if the defendant has a negative image.

Juries are given incredibly clear and strict directions in what they can and can't consider as evidence; 12 people are not all going to ignore that and go off of what they heard (usually at least a year or two previously) in the media if it contradicts what is presented in court, or if it something that wasn't presented at all ... Really, the system just doesn't allow for this kind of thing.
PS - The media doesn't distort facts in order to achieve what they consider justice. Their motivations are not that righteous!

[JonnyPistachio]

i, for the most part, feel that it is the media's responsibility to bring attention to cases ... obviously, falsifying information or distorting it is absolutely wrong but without the media ... trayvon martin would not get his day in court ... his family would just be left with a dead member ...

I agree that it is the media's responsibility but do it for the right reasons, like a stupid law that got this guy off the hook. Don't lie and incite people. And admit it when you do.

it's not a stupid law......

Is this what you're talking about?
A person may kill somebody if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony;

That's not a stupid law?

[norm]

Zimmerman makes court appearance
4:10 p.m. EST, April 12, 2012|

By Rene Stutzman and Arelis R. Hernández, Orlando Sentinel

George Zimmerman, the Neighborhood Watch volunteer arrested Wednesday in the fatal shooting of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, faced a judge for the first time this afternoon.

Meanwhile, a probable cause affidavit filed in the second-degree murder case failed to disclose much new evidence.

The four-page affidavit did, however, does offer a few new pieces of information. It says, that "Zimmerman confronted Martin," an apparent contradiction of Zimmerman's version of the events.

It also says Trayvon's mother identified the screams for help heard in a 911 call as those of her son. It also reveals that investigators interviewed a "friend" of Trayvon's who talked to him on the phone in the leadup to the shooting.

Based on the description, it appears the friend was the girl described by Martin family attorneys as his girlfriend.

"During this time, Martin was on the phone with a friend and described to her what was happening," the affidavit said. "The witness advised that Martin was scared because he was being followed through the complex by an unknown male and didn't know why."

Martin tried to run home, the affidavit says, but was followed by Zimmerman. "Zimmerman got out of his vehicle and followed Martin."

The affidavit goes on to say that "Zimmerman disregarded the police dispatcher" who told him to stop, and "continued to follow Martin who was trying to return to his home."

Zimmerman, the affidavit says, "confronted Martin and a struggle ensued."

According to the affidavit: "Trayvon Martin's mother has reviewed the 911 calls and identified the voice crying for help as Trayvon Martin's. Zimmerman shot Martin in the chest."

Zimmerman's first appearance began just after 1:30 p.m. He faces a second-degree murder charge in the Feb. 26 shooting, which sparked international outcry.

Zimmerman appeared in a jumpsuit and handcuffs. He was joined by his new attorney, Mark O'Mara. A first-appearance judge found probable cause for the murder charge.

The judge set Zimmerman's next court date for May 29 at 1:30 p.m. Zimmerman spoke only once during the hearing, responding "yes sir" to a question.

No bond hearing was held. Zimmerman will remain in jail for the time being.

After Zimmerman exited, O'Mara asked the judge to seal documents in the court file containing other information -- including witness statements and information.

"I am seeking on my clients behalf... that we do a complete sealing of that record," O'Mara said, adding that the sealing would be temporary. The judge agreed.

After the hearing, prosecutor Bernie De La Rionda asked reporters gathered outside for patience.

"In the rule of law, we have jury trials for a purpose," De La Rionda said. O'Mara echoed that sentiment.

"It really, truly, it works," O'Mara said of the judicial system, telling reporters that in a case of this profile, if it doesn't work, "you'll tell us."

O'Mara said it made more sense to forgo a bond hearing at this point, electing to give time to allow the fervor surrounding the case to die down. He said his client is in protective custody.

The case has been assigned to Circuit Court Judge Jessica Recksiedler.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/201 ... w-accident

[PJ_Soul]

Zimmerman makes court appearance
4:10 p.m. EST, April 12, 2012|

By Rene Stutzman and Arelis R. Hernández, Orlando Sentinel

George Zimmerman, the Neighborhood Watch volunteer arrested Wednesday in the fatal shooting of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, faced a judge for the first time this afternoon.

Meanwhile, a probable cause affidavit filed in the second-degree murder case failed to disclose much new evidence.

The four-page affidavit did, however, does offer a few new pieces of information. It says, that "Zimmerman confronted Martin," an apparent contradiction of Zimmerman's version of the events.

It also says Trayvon's mother identified the screams for help heard in a 911 call as those of her son. It also reveals that investigators interviewed a "friend" of Trayvon's who talked to him on the phone in the leadup to the shooting.

Based on the description, it appears the friend was the girl described by Martin family attorneys as his girlfriend.

"During this time, Martin was on the phone with a friend and described to her what was happening," the affidavit said. "The witness advised that Martin was scared because he was being followed through the complex by an unknown male and didn't know why."

Martin tried to run home, the affidavit says, but was followed by Zimmerman. "Zimmerman got out of his vehicle and followed Martin."

The affidavit goes on to say that "Zimmerman disregarded the police dispatcher" who told him to stop, and "continued to follow Martin who was trying to return to his home."

Zimmerman, the affidavit says, "confronted Martin and a struggle ensued."

According to the affidavit: "Trayvon Martin's mother has reviewed the 911 calls and identified the voice crying for help as Trayvon Martin's. Zimmerman shot Martin in the chest."

Zimmerman's first appearance began just after 1:30 p.m. He faces a second-degree murder charge in the Feb. 26 shooting, which sparked international outcry.

Zimmerman appeared in a jumpsuit and handcuffs. He was joined by his new attorney, Mark O'Mara. A first-appearance judge found probable cause for the murder charge.

The judge set Zimmerman's next court date for May 29 at 1:30 p.m. Zimmerman spoke only once during the hearing, responding "yes sir" to a question.

No bond hearing was held. Zimmerman will remain in jail for the time being.

After Zimmerman exited, O'Mara asked the judge to seal documents in the court file containing other information -- including witness statements and information.

"I am seeking on my clients behalf... that we do a complete sealing of that record," O'Mara said, adding that the sealing would be temporary. The judge agreed.

After the hearing, prosecutor Bernie De La Rionda asked reporters gathered outside for patience.

"In the rule of law, we have jury trials for a purpose," De La Rionda said. O'Mara echoed that sentiment.

"It really, truly, it works," O'Mara said of the judicial system, telling reporters that in a case of this profile, if it doesn't work, "you'll tell us."

O'Mara said it made more sense to forgo a bond hearing at this point, electing to give time to allow the fervor surrounding the case to die down. He said his client is in protective custody.

The case has been assigned to Circuit Court Judge Jessica Recksiedler.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/201 ... w-accident

[polaris_x]

well ... if that's true ... any glimmer of justification on zimmerman's front goes out the window in my books ...

[gimmesometruth27]

well ... if that's true ... any glimmer of justification on zimmerman's front goes out the window in my books ...

mine too.

i don't think the state would have charged him with murder 2 if there was a whole lot of doubt that they could convict him....

we will wait and see.

[Monster Rain]

IF that's all true, then Zimmerman is guilty. I don't know if Martin's mother saying it's his voice on the tape will be enough to convince a jury unless there is some sort of forensic evidence to corroborate that (a comparison to his voice on a recent home video, for example). It could be argued by the defense that she has no way of knowing what Zimmerman's screams would sound like and that she could be mistaken because she wants to believe her son wasn't the aggresor so her mind had subconciously decided that it was Trayvon's voice before she ever heard the tape. If the prosecution is dumb enough to use her opinion alone as evidence of that point then they are going to have serious problems winning this case. I wonder what type of evidence they have that Zimmerman continued following Martin after being asked not to. I would assume that they must have something to indicate it if they mentioned it in the affadavit, so that'll be interesting to hear about when the trial starts. I hope they have evidence of this--not because I want a verdict one way or another, but because I don't want this to turn out to be a case that was taken to trial without sufficient evidence just to appease the public.

[polaris_x]

mine too.

i don't think the state would have charged him with murder 2 if there was a whole lot of doubt that they could convict him....

we will wait and see.

well ... i think the "stand your ground" law will play a major factor ... right now i can see the defense saying he questioned martin because that's what neighbourhood watch people do and then was going to leave but martin assaulted him and therefore gave him grounds to shoot him ...

[gimmesometruth27]

mine too.

i don't think the state would have charged him with murder 2 if there was a whole lot of doubt that they could convict him....

we will wait and see.

well ... i think the "stand your ground" law will play a major factor ... right now i can see the defense saying he questioned martin because that's what neighbourhood watch people do and then was going to leave but martin assaulted him and therefore gave him grounds to shoot him ...

how can you claim stand your ground when you are not on your property? he was out in the open. he was not defending his home or his property. he followed him to someone else's property, confronted him, which is not defensive mind you....initiating a confrontation is an act of offense, and by that rationale stand your ground can not be a defense in this case.

[81]

Is this what you're talking about?
A person may kill somebody if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony;

That's not a stupid law?

i've got no problem with it....

if you don't wanna get shot, don't do stupid shit.

[PJ_Soul]

Is this what you're talking about?
A person may kill somebody if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony;

That's not a stupid law?

i've got no problem with it....

if you don't wanna get shot, don't do stupid shit.

Like walk home from the store?