What sickens me is how most people are shooting down the fact that race absolutely played in part in this.

The only way race played a part in this is burglary suspects in the area were black.

 

That is it, period. Had nothing to do with racism, it had to do with facts of subjects who were involved in burglaries and they so happened to be black. GZ didn't kill Trayvon because he was black. GZ hasn't gone out hunting black people to kill, yet that is how you and others have made it sound.

As I'm sure we all expected, this verdict has brought no closure or satisfaction to anyone. This was just a messed up situation from the get go. I believe the verdict was correct but it still just feels wrong.

Not a fan of the president saying we need to bring on more gun control to honor Trayvon.

Not a fan of the president saying we need to bring on more gun control to honor Trayvon.

 

I lean your way on this one. Fight for gun control if you believe it's right but let's not politicize a kid's death.

Some blacks will never get it.

 

I know. As soon as you admit some whites will never get it then the conversation can begin to become productive.

 

Here's the truth.

As I'm sure we all expected, this verdict has brought no closure or satisfaction to anyone. This was just a messed up situation from the get go. I believe the verdict was correct but it still just feels wrong.

 

Very true. When anyone is killed it is never going to feel right.

I obviously am posting an opinion. We only have one version of the story. My 99-cent psychological analysis says GZ is out looking to be Johnny Law and saw a black kid and assumed he was up to no good without any proof. How do we know TM was truly acting suspicious? How do we know where he truly was? We don't. It's all speculation.

 

Please layout the logic and rationale for your opinion or "99-cent psychological analysis" that GZ was looking to be Johnny Law? Is it based simply on the fact he was a member of a neighborhood watch program? I hope not, as then one would have to conclude that the members of neighborhood watch programs every where (and there are many in black neighborhoods comprised by black people) are looking to be Johnny Laws also. Was it because he was carrying a gun? I hope not, as one would have to conclude that everyone carrying a weapon is looking to be Johnny Law. Is it a combination of both being a member of a watch program and carrying a gun?

 

Help me understand your thinking. Generally your posts and opinions are well thought out so I'd like to understand your rationale. Perhaps I could come to the same analysis if you explained the foundation for it. Is there something in his past that helps support your "analysis"? For example, had he previously tried to become a police officer but had not made the cut?

 

And even without a solid basis for your "analysis", I'm not saying you are wrong. You very well may be right. But I believe it would be pure speculation on your part if you are just relying on the fact he was a member of a neighborhood watch program and carrying a gun. And on such a touchy subject, none of us should be speculating on anything. It's dangerous stuff. Yes, we all have a right to develop and express opinions. But we have a responsibility to do so in a responsible way.

 

And I have seen plenty of posts on this subject that have been extremely irresponsible. It offends my sense of rational thinking that someone (not you) would express an opinion and then say they haven't followed the trial and considered the factual evidence. How in the hell can one logically develop a well founded opinion worth sharing with others without knowing the facts? Sometimes the facts I rely on to make an opinion turn out to be false and when corrected, I have to change my opinion. But I sure don't form opinions and conclusions, and make accusations, and then say I had no idea of the facts because I hadn't even really followed the issue before I made that opinion, formed that conclusion and made those accusations.

 

As a former prosecutor myself, my initial thinking was that it was a weak case to begin with but because I did not know all of the evidence. I remember thinking" I sure hope the prosecutor has something that I'm not aware of. After having watched a fair amount of the trial, I thought it was a case that never should have been brought, and would not have been brought but for the sensationalism, protests and media attention given to this tragic event. Take the emotion out of this case, and GZ is never even charged. So the complete acquittal did not surprise me in the least. While I thought the judge leaned slightly in the favor of the prosecution, I believe she did so because she knew that the evidence was extremely, extremely weak and didn't want to have any of her rulings be appealable by the prosecutor after GZ was acquitted and a new trial ordered.

It has been my observation over the years that a judge will generally give the criminal defendant the benefit of the doubt on rulings because the judge doesn't want appealable error in the record. Then again, in the typical criminal case, the prosecutor will have sufficient evidence to convict. In this case, the prosecution did not.

 

I did feel good when I heard several legal commentators state during and after the trial what I had also observed: normally it's the prosecutor that very calmly and unemotionally lays out the facts and introduces the evidence into the record; and it's the defense counsel that in a very emotional (after often theatrically) manner tries to rebut and undermine the credibility of the evidence. Why, because with few exceptions, the prosecutor won't bring a case to trial unless he/she has very solid evidence to convict. No reason for theatrics or drama. Just make sure you get the evidence in the record and then sit down. The defense counsel on the other hand normally knows there is sufficient evidence to convict. So he/she has to do whatever he/she can to draw the attention away from the evidence; has to do whatever he/she can to create enough side issues so that at least one member of the jury is willing to focus on something other than the evidence; has to appeal to emotions so that the jury doesn't doesn't use logic and reason when it deliberates and considers the evidence.

 

In this case, it was just the opposite of normal. It was the prosecutor that was going the theatrical route trying to appeal to emotions and it was the defense that more calmly introduced the evidence that undermined the prosecution's case of innuendo and assumptions. It was the prosecutor trying to undermine the defense evidence instead of relying on its own evidence. Why the flip from normal? Because the prosecutor didn't have the evidence to convict. Legal Training 101: when you don't have the facts and the law on your side, you start throwing mud at the wall and hope some sticks. Problem here was......... none of it stuck, and the jury unanimously, repeat unanimously (which means the black juror too) voted for a total acquittal. No hung jury here folks. This was a unanimous verdict that took less than 17 hours of deliberation.

 

In my opinion, defense counsel did a good job. Prosecution did the best they could with what they had to work with, which was to try and portray GZ as a wannabe cop that got out of his car with malice and intent towards TM. Looks like it worked to convince some members of the site; it didn't work with any, not one, of the jurors.

Please layout the logic and rationale for your opinion or "99-cent psychological analysis" that GZ was looking to be Johnny Law? Is it based simply on the fact he was a member of a neighborhood watch program? I hope not, as then one would have to conclude that the members of neighborhood watch programs every where (and there are many in black neighborhoods comprised by black people) are looking to be Johnny Laws also. Was it because he was carrying a gun? I hope not, as one would have to conclude that everyone carrying a weapon is looking to be Johnny Law. Is it a combination of both being a member of a watch program and carrying a gun?

 

Help me understand your thinking.

 

46 phone calls to police from August 2004 to the time of the shooting. 6 made in the few weeks before the shooting. Wording he used on the calls "male subject" "YOA (years of age)" "last seen wearing" "unknown subjects." He also asked a minister to write a letter of recommendation when he applied to be an officer.

Saw an article that said while the Justice Department, under pressure from the NAACP, is considering pursuing civil rights violations against GZ; the FBI has found no evidence that he is a racist after dozens of interviews. Will be interesting to see where it goes next.

LN, as a prosecutor would you have entered GZ's videos into evidence? I've heard many legal experts say it was a mistake because it essentially allowed GZ to testify without having to take the stand.

Saw an article that said while the Justice Department, under pressure from the NAACP, is considering pursuing civil rights violations against GZ; the FBI has found no evidence that he is a racist after dozens of interviews. Will be interesting to see where it goes next.

 

I can't see how the govt would win a civil rights case.

I can't see how the govt would win a civil rights case.

 

I'm not sure winning would be much of a consideration. If they're under pressure, pursuing the case might be all the DOJ would be after. I hope not. Private case against GZ is the way to go. That is winnable.

46 phone calls to police from August 2004 to the time of the shooting. 6 made in the few weeks before the shooting. Wording he used on the calls "male subject" "YOA (years of age)" "last seen wearing" "unknown subjects." He also asked a minister to write a letter of recommendation when he applied to be an officer.

 

Thanks. Wasn't aware he had applied to be an officer. That certainly supports your "analysis". Rest of it is more consistent with just being a member of a neighorhood watch program.

Thanks. Wasn't aware he had applied to be an officer. That certainly supports your "analysis". Rest of it is more consistent with just being a member of a neighorhood watch program.

 

No problem. I fully admit it's a lot of conjecture on my part.

LN, as a prosecutor would you have entered GZ's videos into evidence? I've heard many legal experts say it was a mistake because it essentially allowed GZ to testify without having to take the stand.

 

I can see both sides of prosecution's decision. It was a gamble that did not pan out. And no doubt that the vids did allow GZ to testify without having to take the stand.