Dr Adebisi:

It is difficult to find a fault with your detailed analysis.

As you wrote the prosecuting attorneys didnot step up to the
plate not only for their failures to explore the areas you highlighted
but also for their seeming unpreparedness to counter the defense
arguments about self defense in this case!

Bye,

Ola

---- Original Message ----
From: niyi adebisi <niyi528@yahoo.com>
To: OlaKassimMD <OlaKassimMD@aol.com>; usaafricadialogue <usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com>
Cc: nigeriansncanada <nigeriansncanada@yahoogroups.com>; nigerianid <nigerianid@yahoogroups.com>; omoodua <omoodua@yahoogroups.com>; NIgerianWorldForum <NIgerianWorldForum@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Mon, Jul 15, 2013 1:20 pm
Subject: [NIgerianWorldForum] To Dr. Kassim: Re: NigerianID | Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - BBC Program on Zimmerman Verdict

Dr. Ola Kassim,

I believed the crown did not do excellent job. Here are my reasons:

A. GZ is an adult who had professional self-defence physical training as part of his preparation for security job and his life time ambition of joining police. With this, he was better positioned to be able to defend himself, without using gun, against TM, a teenager with no such training. The crown was supposed to have exploited this point;

B. GZ was an "A" student in a criminology course that put him at significant cerebral and cognitive advantage over TM as regards to the application of "Stand Your Ground" laws in FL in proving self-defense. GZ knew that all he had to do was to provoke TM just enough to set off a fight so that he could be injured (whether self-inflicted or not in this case) or avenue for self injury could be created. The injury he knew he might suffer from altercation with TM was a deliberate plan to be used as an evidence to prove self defense after killing TM.

C. GZ was in his vehicle when he spotted a lone black male walking down the street;

D. GZ profiled TM as a possible burglar because TM fit into his mindset identity of possible burglar;

E. TM did not branch at any house to indicate that he was about to burgle any house, yet GZ profiled and pursued him;

F. GZ called police and police advised him not to follow TM;

G. Because GZ knew what he was doing, which was to kill TM and claim it was in selfdefense, he jettisoned the advice of the law enforcement agent that advised him not to follow TM. He had option of waiting for the police to arrive because at that point TM posed no immediate danger to him. He deliberately made a wrong choice and followed TM against the advice of the authorized law enforcement agents;

H. GZ, while leaving his car to follow TM against the advice of the police, took a loaded gun along with him because he knew that he was going to kill TM and would then claim self defense;

I. GZ eventually caught up with TM who was eating and speaking on the phone at the same tome while walking down the street unarmed;

J. TM asked GZ why he was following him. Just as GZ had expected and planned, TM's question set-off a face off that GZ knew would happen and altercation that GZ knew would start soon after catching up with TM did start;

K. GZ had enough physical and mental training and experience and capability along with age maturity that he could have used to defend himself against TM without using gun;

L. Because GZ had planned to kill TM and claim self-defense, he deliberately chose not to defend himself with the skills he acquired from his judo training. GZ allowed altercation to lead to physical combat without defending himself adequately with appropriate physical force because he had another plan - that is to shoot TM dead in cold blood and claim self-defense knowing fully well that he would be exonerated based on his excellent understanding of the FL "Stand Your Ground" law;

M. GZ murdered TM with a single bullet wound as he had premeditated. He knew that he needed some injuries on his body to convince others that the murder he just committed was in selfdefense. He injured himself and blamed the injury on TM who had been killed and could not refute such lie;

N. TM autopsy showed that he had no blood or flesh of GZ on his hands or fingers. It was practically impossible for TM to have been the cause of the blunt injuries to the nose and occiput of GZ that were shown bleeding without TM's knuckle or any part of his hands showing evidence of such brutality and or body parts of GZ - say flesh or blood,

O. The defense counsel held the shoulders of the model that was used in the court as if a human being in combat could have been held the same way and he or she would not have been able to free self from a teenager but the crown did not see anything technically wrong in that demonstration. Unfortunately, the jury believed this flawed misrepresentation of facts;

P. The crown and the police were already acting on assumption that GZ was not guilty and the crown's way of prosecuting the case revealed the sloppiness that came with lack of self belief in what was being done. Even the police testified in favor of the defense and against the crown/the victim of murder - that is American judiciary for you!

Q. To further show that the actions of GZ were deliberate, he lied about having knowledge of the "Stand Your Ground" law so that they would not think that he knew what to do to claim self defense and that his actions were premeditated.

The bottom line is that the crown had enough evidence to prove intentional murder that could have been prevented but the crown failed to utilize those pieces of evidence in effective way. Whether this was due to incompetence or deliberate injustice is what is unknown.

Niyi Adebisi

From: "OlaKassimMD@aol.com" <OlaKassimMD@aol.com>
To:usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com
Cc:nigeriansncanada@yahoogroups.com; nigerianid@yahoogroups.com; omoodua@yahoogroups.com; NIgerianWorldForum@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 10:00 AM
Subject: NigerianID | Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - BBC Program on Zimmerman Verdict

Blargeo:

While I donot share your characterization of Chief Chika Onyeani's reaction
to the Not Guilty Verdict rendered to George Zimmerman by a Florida jury, I wish to support your appeal
(which I assume is the goal of your commentary) that we control our emotions on this tragedy.

Only the 6 members of the jury plus the alternate knew exactly what went on
in the jury deliberation room. Hence it is not possible to tell who was being intimidated
or not intimidated and by whom.

The job of the jury is an onerous task at the best of times--considering that ordinary lay men
and women ( a jury of the defendant's peers) are plucked from their ordinary daily lives
and saddled with the difficult task of first understanding the evidence put before them by the prosecution
and the defense attorneys, put the evidence in the context of the applicable laws, which many adults are
at pains to understand at the best of times and then finally make a decision on guilt or innocence..

There is nothing within a jury deliberation that would force anyone to go along with the majority and sacrifice
his or her conscience just to go along with the majority. Any juror on the panel could have stood her ground
and have the case declared a mistrial due to a hung jury.

In order for the jury to have found George Zimmerman guilty, the crown would have had to prove the case
for his guilt beyond all reasonable doubts. Wherever there is any reasonable doubt in the evidence,
the jury was expected to give the accused a benefit of the doubt.

The defense surely exploited the issue by creating many 'reasonable doubts' in the minds of the jury including
the following:

a) beyond the initial stage of their encounter in which GZ had profiled TM as a black kid who was up to no good and deiced toi start following
him doubts were raised by the defence
on the following issues

     --who attacked whom, was it GZ or TM who started the fight

      --whose voice was heard shouting for help on the 911 phone call;
         the mothers of the accused and the victim claimed it was their sons voice
         that was shouting for help ( I wondered why the Prosecuting attorneys did not consult an expert in voice analysis
         to confirm whose voice on the tape before the trial begun.

      --once the fight started between GZ and TM, who was having the upper hand and who would have needed help

       --could the crown prove that the shooting was not inself defence (even if most adults would consider this unlikely)

      --what was the exact relative position of the victim TM relative to the shooter -GZ when the shot was fired.

The defense attorneys in the GZ trial had a much easier hurdle to overcome than the crown which is to create enough doubts in the
minds of at least one member of the jury. They succeeded in doing just that and more.

The crown on the other hand had a more difficult hurdle to overcome--namely to prove beyond all reasonable doubts that
GZ intentionally killed TM ( a task that would require deciphering what was going on in GZ's brain at the moment he fired
the shot that killed TM. An impossible task for anyone!

On the basis of the relative performance of the defence attorneys Vs the crown attorneys, it is quite apparent to any unbiased
observer that the the crown did not step up to the plate and that they did not provide sufficient eveidence to warrant a conviction
against GZ --based on the evidence presented in court. The defense team, as usual won by default, because the crown was unable
to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts--not minding the fact
it is the same defense team that had successfully created enough doubts in the case in the minds of the jury members.

There is no need to vilify any member or members of the jury. Cases are not decided on emotions but rather on available facts that
are presented to the jury. What the jury did in the GZ case is what jurors are expected to do in all criminal trials.
When the evidence is in doubt--give the benefit of the doubt to the accused! The jurors gave GZ the benefit of the doubt'
even though he might be guilty in the minds of many observers --of either second degree murder or manslaughter!

That GZ was found not guilty does not mean that he is innocent--only that there was insufficient evidence to lock him up
for the rest of his life!

Bye,

Ola

---- Original Message ----
From: blargeo.dekeye <blargeo.dekeye@gmail.com>
To: usaafricadialogue <usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Mon, Jul 15, 2013 11:06 am
Subject: Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - BBC Program on Zimmerman Verdict

Chika,
You have shown your hand as a racist too and it makes you no better than the jurors that did Martins a second time injustice. Infact your language portrays you in a worse light, it shows you as a conceited and condescending sexist.

Sent from my BlackBerry wireless device from MTN

From: Chika Onyeani <afrstime@aol.com>

Sender: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com

Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2013 22:27:38 -0400 (EDT)

To: <usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com>

ReplyTo: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - BBC Program on Zimmerman Verdict

BBC Program on Zimmerman Verdict

July 14, 2013 By conyeaniLeave a Comment

I have agreed to be interviewed on the BBC where I am interviewed frequently, at 11 pm, New York Time today, which is 3 am British time. I am emotionally angry and sad that an unarmed black teenager, minding his own business, was gunned down and his killer acquitted by almost all-white jury, with a buffoon of a so-called black/hispanic woman whose passion and obviously profession is making children, eight children and working at a nursing home. The idiot doesn't even know how to close her f**king damn legs, let alone knowing how to decide on a murder conviction with the white women intimidating her.

Listen to the BBC at 3 am GMT.

Chika Onyeani

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.