Did Trayvon Martin get a fair trial?

47 posts / 0 new
Last post
Spacers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4104
Did Trayvon Martin get a fair trial?

Juror B37's -- the one who, less than two days after the verdict was rendered, signed a book deal but has sinced reneged on it -- entire voir dire, the process in which both sides have the chance to intervew prospective jurors and eliminate those they don't want, was captured on film and was posted on Gawker yesterday. There's a link to the video in the article posted below. I can't seem to copy the entire article, but here are a few highlights. After reading this information about Juror B37, do you think this was a fair trial? Could justice really be served with someone like this on the jury?

- - - - -

"

he tape raises another question that should be debated in every trial advocacy class in America: What were the lawyers, especially the prosecutors, thinking when they seated her? Why didn?t prosecutors use one of their peremptory challenges to nix her? She?s contrarian, she raised serious ontological doubts about the nature of truth-seeking, and she was only ever truly animated on the subject of rescue birds. Both lawyers were visibly cowed by her."

"Robert Weisberg teaches criminal law at Stanford Law School, and he immediately wonders what it meant when juror B37 asserted that ?You never get all the information. How do you form an opinion if you don?t have all the information?" Weisberg sums up his lawyerly concerns in one sentence: ?She thinks the world is one big reasonable doubt.?"

"Brashers-Krug has another reservation about seating B37: ?She really wants to be a juror. She seems to be going out of her way to minimize the disruptive effect of a multiweek trial on her life. Jurors rarely do that. She is also taking pains to avoid saying anything particularly sympathetic to either side. Both sides tend to be very skeptical of jurors who are particularly eager to serve on high-profile cases. Often they have their own agendas, or are attention-seekers.?"

"Watching B37 run rings around her interlocutors raises once again the fundamental question of what we achieve whenever we attempt to seat a juror who knows nothing whatsoever about a high-profile case. We are left with people who avoid any brushes with policy, law, or politics and?paradoxically?come to convince themselves (as does B37) that everything they will hear in the courtroom is truth. This is hardly a new problem. Mark Twain grumbled about it in Roughing It in 1864."

"It?s not that juror B37 is a miscreant or a fool so much as a reflexive doubter that truth and facts are really knowable anymore. She speaks for the millions of Americans who believe that everyone is lying about something and the media lies about everything. The Internet, she explains, is for getting to the next level on Candy Crush Saga, not for getting information. And since everything is a lie, she doesn?t care enough to learn that the riots she believes to have happened did not. One wonders whether she would buy her own book about the truth behind the Zimmerman verdict."

Zimmerman trial juror B37: Why did prosecutors let her on the Trayvon Martin jury? - Slate Magazine

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 2 weeks ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4229

Absolutely. The prosecutors had no evidence to present that is why they looked so bad. This should never have been brought to trial in the first place.

ClairesMommy's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 4 months ago
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

During the whole thing GZ showed not an ounce of remorse, no sadness, no tears. Nothing. You'd think that someone truly innocent would be shouting it from the rooftops or something, or at least look like they give a damn. After all the eff ups and the questionable juror selection and the media circus you'd think one thing would stand out from the rest of the mess, and that would be GZ's actions during the trial if he was innocent. He just sat there with the look on his face like he was sitting through a long sermon or something. No reaction from him whatsoever, just boredom and dead eyes. That, to me, says it all. I hope they nail him with civil charges.

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 2 weeks ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4229

"ClairesMommy" wrote:

During the whole thing GZ showed not an ounce of remorse, no sadness, no tears. Nothing. You'd think that someone truly innocent would be shouting it from the rooftops or something, or at least look like they give a damn. After all the eff ups and the questionable juror selection and the media circus you'd think one thing would stand out from the rest of the mess, and that would be GZ's actions during the trial if he was innocent. He just sat there with the look on his face like he was sitting through a long sermon or something. No reaction from him whatsoever, just boredom and dead eyes. That, to me, says it all. I hope they nail him with civil charges.

TM's parents already got a million dollars from the homeowners association. They will probably quit while they are ahead. Not much point to sue someone with no money.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 1 week ago
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6803

Trayvon Martin was not on trial.

mom3girls's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 weeks ago
Joined: 01/09/07
Posts: 1537

Yes, Trayon got a fair trial. Every legal analyst I have heard talk about it says that the judge leaned in the states favor.

Spacers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4104

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

Trayvon Martin was not on trial.

He most certainly was. Having seen that video, I'm appalled that this person got onto the jury that was trying the man who killed him. I think it really brings into question whether *Martin* got a fair trial since this was the opportunity for justice in his name.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 7 months ago
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

I don't think they had "no evidence." They had the fact that none of Zimmerman's DNA was found on Trayvon Martin's body, which is super weird if he were on top of him beating him up. They had the fact that none of Martin's DNA or fingerprints were found on the gun, which is also weird if Martin was supposedly grabbing it. They had witness testimony from someone who was on the phone with Martin at the time testifying to him saying "get off me" (you may not believe her, but that was her testimony.) We have the position of Martin's body on the grass, a good way away from the pavement where he was supposedly in the middle of bashing in Zimmerman's head when Zimmerman shot him. They had a lot of stuff that puts reasonable doubt on Zimmerman's story that Martin was the one that attacked him, but Martin wasn't the one on trial. Not to mention the greater philosophical questions like "Is the 'he-sneaked-up-behind-me-while-I-was-chasing-after-him' defense really valid?"I just think that the prosecution did a terrible job, and at least one of the jurors sounds awful.

Offline
Last seen: 3 years 4 weeks ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

Trayvon Martin was not on trial.

True- but only because went from doing nothing at all wrong to having GZ be his judge, jury and executioner.

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 2 weeks ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4229

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

I don't think they had "no evidence." They had the fact that none of Zimmerman's DNA was found on Trayvon Martin's body, which is super weird if he were on top of him beating him up. They had the fact that none of Martin's DNA or fingerprints were found on the gun, which is also weird if Martin was supposedly grabbing it. They had witness testimony from someone who was on the phone with Martin at the time testifying to him saying "get off me" (you may not believe her, but that was her testimony.) We have the position of Martin's body on the grass, a good way away from the pavement where he was supposedly in the middle of bashing in Zimmerman's head when Zimmerman shot him. They had a lot of stuff that puts reasonable doubt on Zimmerman's story that Martin was the one that attacked him, but Martin wasn't the one on trial. Not to mention the greater philosophical questions like "Is the 'he-sneaked-up-behind-me-while-I-was-chasing-after-him' defense really valid?"I just think that the prosecution did a terrible job, and at least one of the jurors sounds awful.

It's not really super weird when it was raining and they couldn't even see blood on the ground because it was all washed away. TM bled for sure since he was shot yet there was no blood. So how is it surprising that they didn't find DNA on his hands after the body was sitting out in the rain, when they didn't even bag his hands?

Alissa_Sal's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 7 months ago
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

You don't have to be able to see DNA for it to be there. If I swab your cheek to test your DNA, you wouldn't be able to see the actual cheek cells I'm looking at. It's just pretty amazing that they were in this crazy fight where lots of skin cells and hair follicles and all sorts of stuff was presumably flying around, and there was *nothing*, not even tiny skin cells under his nails or anything. If Trayvon Martin were the one on trial for assualting GZ first and they didn't have DNA, didn't have fingerprints on the gun, and he had been found (let's say unconscious instead of dead) laying quite a bit away from the sidewalk, and had a witness testifying that she heard him yelling "get off of me" do you think that would be enough reasonable doubt for him to walk? I do.

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 2 weeks ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4229

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

You don't have to be able to see DNA for it to be there. If I swab your cheek to test your DNA, you wouldn't be able to see the actual cheek cells I'm looking at. It's just pretty amazing that they were in this crazy fight where lots of skin cells and hair follicles and all sorts of stuff was presumably flying around, and there was *nothing*, not even tiny skin cells under his nails or anything. If Trayvon Martin were the one on trial for assualting GZ first and they didn't have DNA, didn't have fingerprints on the gun, and he had been found (let's say unconscious instead of dead) laying quite a bit away from the sidewalk, and had a witness testifying that she heard him yelling "get off of me" do you think that would be enough reasonable doubt for him to walk? I do.

You are forgetting the eyewitness that saw TM on top of GZ punching him while GZ was screaming for help. I don't think he would have walked with that information included.

Not only that but if TM had been the one on trial his past would have been admitted. There are multiple videos on the internet of TM in fights and boxing. TM was on his third school suspension, so he wasn't in school. He was suspended for truancy, writing W.T.F. on school property, a bag full of unaccounted for jewelry in his back pack and drugs and paraphenelia at school.

That is besides the texts about fighting and getting a gun that were on his cell phone that the prosecutor tried to hide from the defense and actually fired one of their lawyers for telling them the info existed.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 7 months ago
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

You are forgetting the eyewitness that saw TM on top of GZ punching him while GZ was screaming for help. I don't think he would have walked with that information included.

We've got one "eye witness" that says one thing and another voice witness that says another, and a bunch of people disagreeing about whose voice was screaming for help. I don't think that by itself is a slam dunk, especially combined with the other evidence or lack there of.

Also, eye witness testimony is terrible. Not on purpose, it just is. Read up on it some time. I had a psych class in college where 3 men burst into the room totally unexpected, yelled parts of the communist manifesto, and shot the proffessor with water guns in front of a lecture hall of like 100 students in a brightly lit room. Later we got to look at pictures of "suspects", discuss, present our arguments, and then vote on who we thought did it. We ended up "convicting" the professor's brother who lives in AK and the TA who was sitting in the front row the whole time while we were arguing that he "looked familiar." The point of the whole exercise was to show us first hand how bad eye witness testimony is. It really is. I voted for the poor TA.

mom3girls's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 weeks ago
Joined: 01/09/07
Posts: 1537

All of the things you are discussing were admitted into evidence by the state though Alissa. The Jury heard all of that and still decided that at the point of the shooting GZ was in fear for his life. If they didnt admit that evidence then I could see thinking he didnt get a fair trial.

I could actually see people arguing that GZ didnt get a fair trial had he been convicted. I would be more apt to agree with that since the judge refused to allow a lot of the defenses evidence. And the state attorney did not turn over a large amount of information during the discovery phase of the trial

Alissa_Sal's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 7 months ago
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"mom3girls" wrote:

All of the things you are discussing were admitted into evidence by the state though Alissa. The Jury heard all of that and still decided that at the point of the shooting GZ was in fear for his life. If they didnt admit that evidence then I could see thinking he didnt get a fair trial.

I could actually see people arguing that GZ didnt get a fair trial had he been convicted. I would be more apt to agree with that since the judge refused to allow a lot of the defenses evidence. And the state attorney did not turn over a large amount of information during the discovery phase of the trial

I'm just arguing with Gloria's assertion that there was "no evidence" and he should never have been arrested. Surely the discrepancies in his story at least warranted some serious looking in to?

Offline
Last seen: 1 month 2 weeks ago
Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1763

"Potter75" wrote:

True- but only because went from doing nothing at all wrong to having GZ be his judge, jury and executioner.

I couldn't find the quote my daughter read me the other night, but it went something like this:

Only in America is a young, black man on trial for his own murder.

Offline
Last seen: 1 month 2 weeks ago
Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1763

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

TM's parents already got a million dollars from the homeowners association. They will probably quit while they are ahead. Not much point to sue someone with no money.

Quit while they are ahead? Their child is dead. In this world, they will never be ahead.

Spacers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4104

I really don't want to get into debating the trial itself again, but the question of whether it was a fair trial, given that at least one juror seems obviously tainted from the start, looking to gain from the experience by writing a book about it, and no one did anything to remove her. Has anyone else looked at the video of the juror? Do you think that this juror could be impartial? And if not, doesn't that mean that the trial was tainted?

Alissa_Sal's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 7 months ago
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

I do think that the trial could have been tainted. Unfortunately I don't know that there is anything to be done about it now. It's not like they can call a mistrial in the prosecution's favor.

mom3girls's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 weeks ago
Joined: 01/09/07
Posts: 1537

"Spacers" wrote:

I really don't want to get into debating the trial itself again, but the question of whether it was a fair trial, given that at least one juror seems obviously tainted from the start, looking to gain from the experience by writing a book about it, and no one did anything to remove her. Has anyone else looked at the video of the juror? Do you think that this juror could be impartial? And if not, doesn't that mean that the trial was tainted?

I watched the video, I thought she was acting strange, but I wouldnt say it was "tainted" I am going to guess that during vor dire all the jury prospects were looked at very heavily. The only thing I wonder about the jury is why it was almost all white woman. Could they not find another minority or a man that was a good pick?

AlyssaEimers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 1 week ago
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6803

Even if this one juror had a bias (so did the judge), didn't all six jurors have to agree to Not Guilty for there to be a not guilty verdict? If this one juror was biased and voted not guilty but the other 5 all thought guilty it would have been a hung jury, not not guilty. All 6 jurors must have voted not guilty if I understand things correctly. That in my opinion makes the point that if one juror was slightly biased it would not have changed the outcome of the case. I agree with Lisa that the defence has a much stronger case of bias than the prosecution.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 7 months ago
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

I think it's actually the opposite - I think all 6 jurors have to agree to a guilty charge.

ETA: Nevermind, I just reread your post. I misunderstood what you meant the first time.

Rivergallery's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 6 months ago
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

"ClairesMommy" wrote:

During the whole thing GZ showed not an ounce of remorse, no sadness, no tears. Nothing. You'd think that someone truly innocent would be shouting it from the rooftops or something, or at least look like they give a damn. After all the eff ups and the questionable juror selection and the media circus you'd think one thing would stand out from the rest of the mess, and that would be GZ's actions during the trial if he was innocent. He just sat there with the look on his face like he was sitting through a long sermon or something. No reaction from him whatsoever, just boredom and dead eyes. That, to me, says it all. I hope they nail him with civil charges.

You would NOT be shouting from the rooftops if the black panthers had a price on your head. Watched an interview with a close friend of his.that omg was black.. saying Z had been crying non stop for days.

Rivergallery's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 6 months ago
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

I don't think they had "no evidence." They had the fact that none of Zimmerman's DNA was found on Trayvon Martin's body, which is super weird if he were on top of him beating him up. They had the fact that none of Martin's DNA or fingerprints were found on the gun, which is also weird if Martin was supposedly grabbing it. They had witness testimony from someone who was on the phone with Martin at the time testifying to him saying "get off me" (you may not believe her, but that was her testimony.) We have the position of Martin's body on the grass, a good way away from the pavement where he was supposedly in the middle of bashing in Zimmerman's head when Zimmerman shot him. They had a lot of stuff that puts reasonable doubt on Zimmerman's story that Martin was the one that attacked him, but Martin wasn't the one on trial. Not to mention the greater philosophical questions like "Is the 'he-sneaked-up-behind-me-while-I-was-chasing-after-him' defense really valid?"I just think that the prosecution did a terrible job, and at least one of the jurors sounds awful.

Rain.. smudged prints,..

Rivergallery's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 6 months ago
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

We've got one "eye witness" that says one thing and another voice witness that says another, and a bunch of people disagreeing about whose voice was screaming for help. I don't think that by itself is a slam dunk, especially combined with the other evidence or lack there of.

Also, eye witness testimony is terrible. Not on purpose, it just is. Read up on it some time. I had a psych class in college where 3 men burst into the room totally unexpected, yelled parts of the communist manifesto, and shot the proffessor with water guns in front of a lecture hall of like 100 students in a brightly lit room. Later we got to look at pictures of "suspects", discuss, present our arguments, and then vote on who we thought did it. We ended up "convicting" the professor's brother who lives in AK and the TA who was sitting in the front row the whole time while we were arguing that he "looked familiar." The point of the whole exercise was to show us first hand how bad eye witness testimony is. It really is. I voted for the poor TA.

There are computer programs that do voice software.. which could have determined whose voice it was.. if that had been an issue.

Rivergallery's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 6 months ago
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

"ethanwinfield" wrote:

I couldn't find the quote my daughter read me the other night, but it went something like this:

Only in America is a young, black man on trial for his own murder.

That because "america" uses the Media to try people. Glad that the jurors saw through or past the mass media hysteria.. where is their outrage re black on black crime! no we only hear them pull race cards when the person is lighter skinned.. and they even leave out the fact he was a minority himself.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 1 week ago
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6803

Off Topic - I just remembered you saying you did not know how to multi quote. In the bottom right hand corner of each post will be "+. Just click on that each time you want a post added into your multi quote.

Rivergallery's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 6 months ago
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

ooh now if I can remember that.. whoho ty! just got a new laptop too and it keeps going to funky screens.

Offline
Last seen: 1 month 2 weeks ago
Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1763

"Rivergallery" wrote:

That because "america" uses the Media to try people. Glad that the jurors saw through or past the mass media hysteria.. where is their outrage re black on black crime! no we only hear them pull race cards when the person is lighter skinned.. and they even leave out the fact he was a minority himself.

I think you missed the meaning of the quote.

I don't know the demographics of the city you live in. But where I live it's approximately 20% black and close to 30% Hispanic or Latino. My school is approximately 68% Hispanic, 18% black, and 9% white. In my little corner of the world, there is a lot of tension between blacks and Hispanics. You don't think minorities can be prejudice against other minorities?

mom3girls's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 weeks ago
Joined: 01/09/07
Posts: 1537

"ethanwinfield" wrote:

I think you missed the meaning of the quote.

I don't know the demographics of the city you live in. But where I live it's approximately 20% black and close to 30% Hispanic or Latino. My school is approximately 68% Hispanic, 18% black, and 9% white. In my little corner of the world, there is a lot of tension between blacks and Hispanics. You don't think minorities can be prejudice against other minorities?

This is a little off topic but I find the racial tensions to be interesting. Do you know what it is about? Here we have a large % of Hispanics but almost no blacks so I have not seen this first hand. We have a family at church that with a black father, he is from Alabama and talks about how less diverse we are here, but also he has felt much more welcomed into the community.

Offline
Last seen: 3 years 4 weeks ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"Rivergallery" wrote:

That because "america" uses the Media to try people. Glad that the jurors saw through or past the mass media hysteria.. where is their outrage re black on black crime! no we only hear them pull race cards when the person is lighter skinned.. and they even leave out the fact he was a minority himself.

Why did you put "america" in quotes?

If we used the media to try people there probably wouldn't have been an all white woman jury of people who had never heard of the case before. Who are these people? Liars or total idiots. And thats our jury?

This is such a BS argument. That this was about a race card. That is what people want to think when the thought of a dead kid doing nothing wrong makes them itch in their own skin. Whatever color it is. OH, GZ was BROWNISH so it wasn't about race.

okay.

Its not my husband out hunting down strangers, and it wont be us on trial for murder someday. Someday the jury won't go your way. So keep on chasing people around with guns and see how that works out for you.

Spacers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4104

"Rivergallery" wrote:

There are computer programs that do voice software.. which could have determined whose voice it was.. if that had been an issue.

It was an issue. Two different experts examined the recorded police phone call (everyone keeps saying it was 911, myself included, but it wasn't, it was made to the NON-emergency line) and they could not determine who it was. That's because there not only wasn't a long enough section of either voice, there also wasn't a similar sample of both voices available to compare to.

Offline
Last seen: 1 month 2 weeks ago
Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1763

"Spacers" wrote:

It was an issue. Two different experts examined the recorded police phone call (everyone keeps saying it was 911, myself included, but it wasn't, it was made to the NON-emergency line) and they could not determine who it was. That's because there not only wasn't a long enough section of either voice, there also wasn't a similar sample of both voices available to compare to.

Voice heard screaming on 911 tape is not Trayvon Martin shooter George Zimmerman, expert says | Fox News

This is from Foxnews over a year ago.

The judge ruled that voice analysts couldn't testify.

Rivergallery's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 6 months ago
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

They couldn't get recordings? If Trayvon had been on trial I bet biscuits that his friends have him on their voicemail somewhere.

Offline
Last seen: 1 month 2 weeks ago
Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1763

"Rivergallery" wrote:

They couldn't get recordings? If Trayvon had been on trial I bet biscuits that his friends have him on their voicemail somewhere.

The problem is matching it to yelling for help. Even with GZ alive, they couldn't say with enough certainty it was him. (Just 48%)

If TM were on trial, that would mean he would still be alive. It would be much easier to get recordings that would help match the scream with more certainty. What's the saying? I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

Rivergallery's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 6 months ago
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

"ethanwinfield" wrote:

The problem is matching it to yelling for help. Even with GZ alive, they couldn't say with enough certainty it was him. (Just 48%)

If TM were on trial, that would mean he would still be alive. It would be much easier to get recordings that would help match the scream with more certainty. What's the saying? I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

I gotcha. Thanks for the info on the voice recognition.. if Zimmerman is guilty maybe the technology will catch up and he can be retried. As it might technically be new evidence

SID081108's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 2 months ago
Joined: 06/03/09
Posts: 1348

On the voice recognition, my husband said that even the FBI (who has the best technology available) couldn't match the voice with a high enough probability, which is why the judge wouldn't let it be admissable in the trial. He was afraid it would sway the jurors and the accuracy was not high enough to allow that. I didn't research this to back it up, but he saw it on CNN.

"mom3girls" wrote:

All of the things you are discussing were admitted into evidence by the state though Alissa. The Jury heard all of that and still decided that at the point of the shooting GZ was in fear for his life. If they didnt admit that evidence then I could see thinking he didnt get a fair trial.

This is exactly the phrase I have an issue with. I watched part of the interview last night on CNN with the juror that has spoken out. She said that the hardest part was trying to understand the law. At one point someone on the jury asked if they should ONLY be considering if GZ feared for his life at that exact moment that he killed Trayvon, or if they should consider the circumstances that led up to it. They determined that under the Stand Your Ground law, they should only consider how he felt in that exact moment, without regard to the moments leading up to it, to determine if he acted in self-defense. I'm sorry, that is just stupid!! So I can instigate anything I want, but if at any moment I decide I got in over my head and I might end up on the wrong side of this fight, I'm free to shoot to kill?? Absolutely ridiculous. Not to mention that's not at all how it was viewed when the judge determined that Marissa Alexander couldn't use it as a defense for firing a shot in her home with an abusive husband telling her he was going to kill her. Florida is just stupid. And that is all.

Rivergallery's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 6 months ago
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

I will have to read about Marissa's case.. I thought it was not her home.

Spacers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4104

"Rivergallery" wrote:

I will have to read about Marissa's case.. I thought it was not her home.

This statement has really been bothering me for a few days and it's not going away for me, and finally I just have to ask:

Why would it matter? Her abusive ex-husband was coming toward her, in violation of a restraining order, and she fully expected that he would hurt her, or worse, as he had done numerous times in the past. Why should it matter whether it was her own home or not? Does she not have the right to protect herself at a friend's home, or at a neighbor's home, or in the parking lot of a grocery store?

Rivergallery's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 6 months ago
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

"Spacers" wrote:

This statement has really been bothering me for a few days and it's not going away for me, and finally I just have to ask:

Why would it matter? Her abusive ex-husband was coming toward her, in violation of a restraining order, and she fully expected that he would hurt her, or worse, as he had done numerous times in the past. Why should it matter whether it was her own home or not? Does she not have the right to protect herself at a friend's home, or at a neighbor's home, or in the parking lot of a grocery store?

In my world it wouldn't I think all women should be allowed to pack everywhere.. and all should have a knowledge of firearms. However, I think according to the law where she lived she was comiting a crime before she even withdrew her firearm. Not sure still what it was.. maybe she wasn't supposed to be where she was.

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 2 weeks ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4229

"SID081108" wrote:

This is exactly the phrase I have an issue with. I watched part of the interview last night on CNN with the juror that has spoken out. She said that the hardest part was trying to understand the law. At one point someone on the jury asked if they should ONLY be considering if GZ feared for his life at that exact moment that he killed Trayvon, or if they should consider the circumstances that led up to it. They determined that under the Stand Your Ground law, they should only consider how he felt in that exact moment, without regard to the moments leading up to it, to determine if he acted in self-defense. I'm sorry, that is just stupid!! So I can instigate anything I want, but if at any moment I decide I got in over my head and I might end up on the wrong side of this fight, I'm free to shoot to kill?? Absolutely ridiculous. Not to mention that's not at all how it was viewed when the judge determined that Marissa Alexander couldn't use it as a defense for firing a shot in her home with an abusive husband telling her he was going to kill her. Florida is just stupid. And that is all.

The stand your ground law didn't even apply in this case and was not used as a defense. It was just regular old self defense. The problem is that you don't have the right to punch someone just because they are following you.

The Marissa Alexander case is a little different because her husband and his two sons testified against her, so I guess it was her word against theirs. I can't say if it was right or wrong but I guess that is what the jury believed. I do think the penalty was a little stiff, I don't like mandatory sentencing laws.

Alexander tried to capitalize on the same leniency in Florida’s self-defense statutes by invoking "stand your ground." Prosecutors, however, argued that the evidence in her case was incriminating.

They said Alexander could have left her home during the argument. Instead, she got her gun from the garage and fired a shot in the direction of Rico Gray, her husband, and his two boys, 9 and 13. The 911 call Gray placed after the shooting indicated he was fleeing and scared for his life. Alexander also reportedly sought out Gray at his “safe house” a few months after the shooting and instigated a fight that left him with a bloodied eye.

With three victims testifying against her, Alexander was convicted of aggravated assault. She was sentenced to 20 years in prison under Florida’s “10-20-Life” minimum sentencing law, which requires anyone who fires a gun during an aggravated assault to serve 20 years.

Marissa Alexander case emerges as symbol after Zimmerman verdict - latimes.com

Offline
Last seen: 1 month 2 weeks ago
Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1763

One of the articles I read said she would have been better off if she had killed him. The crime was assualt but involved a gun so mandatory minimums kicked in. In manslaughter a judge has more flexibility with sentencing.

If I understand correctly, he was at her house in spite of a restraining order. She went to the garage and got her gun. They argued he should have left. If this is true, this is BS. If an intruder broke in, wouldn't gun owners advocate getting their gun and shooing of the intruder rather than fleeing their own home?

Does anyone have a link to the actual transcripts so I can read the whole story?

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 2 weeks ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4229

"ethanwinfield" wrote:

One of the articles I read said she would have been better off if she had killed him. The crime was assualt but involved a gun so mandatory minimums kicked in. In manslaughter a judge has more flexibility with sentencing.

If I understand correctly, he was at her house in spite of a restraining order. She went to the garage and got her gun. They argued he should have left. If this is true, this is BS. If an intruder broke in, wouldn't gun owners advocate getting their gun and shooing of the intruder rather than fleeing their own home?

Does anyone have a link to the actual transcripts so I can read the whole story?

I searched for a trial transcript and wasn't able to find it. I did find this:

States Motion in Opposition of Defendants Motion for Immunity

I guess the things at issue were that she hadn't been living at the house, the husband was living there and she came there to see him. Also that instead of leaving when she had the chance she went to the garage and got her gun and came back and shot at them. And apparently two months after this incident she went to the husband's house and attacked him again, which doesn't really support her claim that she was afraid of him. I'm not really sure what to believe in this case it is really hard to find unbiased information on it, but it seems the jury believed the husband over her.

SID081108's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 2 months ago
Joined: 06/03/09
Posts: 1348

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

I searched for a trial transcript and wasn't able to find it. I did find this:

States Motion in Opposition of Defendants Motion for Immunity

I guess the things at issue were that she hadn't been living at the house, the husband was living there and she came there to see him. Also that instead of leaving when she had the chance she went to the garage and got her gun and came back and shot at them. And apparently two months after this incident she went to the husband's house and attacked him again, which doesn't really support her claim that she was afraid of him. I'm not really sure what to believe in this case it is really hard to find unbiased information on it, but it seems the jury believed the husband over her.

I can't access this link, but from everything I've read, she went to the house to pick up clothes and thought he would not be there (rather than going there to see him, which would be much different). Also, if you read the husband's deposition, it's pretty hard to side with him. In court he changed his whole story and said in the deposition he was trying to protect her. What a load of crap.

Spacers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4104

The article I saw made it sound like it was her mother's house; she'd been staying with her mother since giving birth just nine days earlier. The husband came and confronted her, in violation of a restraining order, because he found texts between her & her first husband. The jury wasn't allowed to hear evidence that her husband had abused her in the past, or that he had beaten her so badly during her pregnancy that their daughter was born prematurely and was in the NICU fighting for her life when this happened. And his kids testified on his behalf? Wow, that's super surprising. Not.

Fla. woman Marissa Alexander gets 20 years for "warning shot": Did she stand her ground? - Crimesider - CBS News

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 2 weeks ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4229

It sure would be nice to find a transcript. It seems like there has to be more to the story that the jury heard since I read one place that they convicted her in just 12 minutes. I read that article as she had been staying with her mother and then went over to the house where her husband was staying on the day of the shooting, not that it happened in her mother's house.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 1 week ago
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6803

I do not think we have enough facts to say one way or the other if this woman was justly tried. Poor past judgements however, do not IMO have any baring on the GZ/TM case.