Zimmerman Not Guilty

[J.T.]

The problem isn't so much that Zimmerman was found not guilty.  The problem is that Florida has a Stand Your Ground law on the books worded so poorly that it allows you to shoot someone in cold blood if you feel that you are threatened and all but guarantees civil immunity via self-defense codification. I am disappointed by the verdict but I expected it because one previous case argued under this law resulted in acquittal. 

 

I am absolutely stunned that the DA's allowed the trial to turn from Martin being a victim to Martin forcing Zimmerman's hand. Zimmerman's hand was forced in the fight because he chose not stand down when the police instructed him to and it baffles me why the procescution did not hammer this home. 

 

I am also amazed that the DA chose to incompetantly pick Zimmerman's story apart when they just should've focused on general inconistancies (ie. lying about not being aware of the Stand Your Ground Law as refuted by one of his professors, lying about his finances being bolstered by donations and his wife being arrested for that) and using those to attck his base credibility.

 

Why pick apart the story bit by bit when you can just trash his trustworthyness altogether?

 

I am not ready to pull the racism card just yet, but there are definitely some cultural issues that should've been emphasized but weren't.  From what I've seen from the testimony, the scuffle began when Zimmerman made a motion into his right hand pants pocket to grab his cell phone, or so he says.  The jury took this as a sign of Martin attacking Zimmerman for no reason.

 

I am not sure what hood you are from but where I'm from, if some guy that means you ill will makes a sudden motion into a pants pocket or the inside of a jacket, you go and get his ass first. That is an automatic beatdown or worse.  You do not flee because should this cat have a gun, all of the footspeed in the world cannot oudistance a bullet.  It is a Kill Or Be Killed situation; no if's and's or but's.

 

It is astonishing that the defense apparently proved that Zimmerman felt threatened by a "suspicious character" but somehow the prosecution failed to prove that Martin also felt threatened by this mysterious person who had been shadowing him the entire walk back to his father's house.

[Control]

That's what I still don't understand, though I'm sure it's been driven into the ground elsewhere: if, in the exact same circumstances, even as Zimmerman describes them, Martin had killed Zimmerman, wouldn't he be justified under the Stand Your Ground law?

[Dolfan in NYC]

B37 is  planning to write a book about her time as a juror.  Excuse my language, but f**k that heifer and her mentality.  Then again, she risks having her real name being discovered if she goes through with her attention whore ways and all the baggage that comes with it.  She may be in over her head.  No better for her.

 

Her book deal is dead.  Apparently an outraged twitter user organized a campaign to get the literary agent to drop her and after a day of angry calls and emails, the agent did so.

 

http://www.uproxx.com/webculture/2013/07/persistent-tweeter-ends-juror-b37s-book-deal/

[Burgundy LaRue]

Her book deal is dead.  Apparently an outraged twitter user organized a campaign to get the literary agent to drop her and after a day of angry calls and emails, the agent did so.

 

http://www.uproxx.com/webculture/2013/07/persistent-tweeter-ends-juror-b37s-book-deal/

 

Good.  She best stay quiet.  Folks all over are searching for her info.  Some think they have it already.

[J.T.]

Zimmerman's best friend Frank has made countless racially insensitive remarks. His brother has made racially insensitive remarks. He has called the police on numerous black males in the neighborhood. Yes, I do realize there was a black male who committed some robberies. He referred to Trayvon as a "fucking punk" and said "these assholes always get away." I could see how someone would say those are ridiculous remarks to make about someone you do not know. It's not a huge leap to make to say that he is potentially a racist.

 

Do I believe he is a racist? Possibly. I'm not going to say it's insane to believe he is. Why did he pick Trayvon to follow? Even the lead detective himself said that he would not have stopped Trayvon. I do wonder what it was about Trayvon that he thought was so suspicious.

 

I'm not really sold on the idea that Zimmerman is a racist.  I think his damage is that he wants to be Batman and "these assholes" didn't refer so much to "black people" as it did to "criminal scum."

 

Zimmerman is worse than a racist.  He is a public fucking menace that would've shot anyone he "deduced" was a criminal whether he be black, latino or what have you, and there were laws in place in Florida that emboldened his philosophy and allowed him to carry a gun.  I am sorry that Trayvon is dead, but Zimmerman would've eventually killed someone in the course of trying to be a hero.

 

Why the prosecution didn't build a case on that logic is also astonishing.

[supremebve]

The overwhelming thing that has come from this entire thing is how much class Trayvon Martin's parents have shown and how little class that basically everyone else involved in this case has displayed. 

 

The media has been doing more preying on the pain of the people who wanted Zimmerman convicted to the point that it is becomming ridiculous.  First they claimed that there would be riots, that never happened.  This is the exact type of racist thinking that got Trayvon Martin killed in the first place.  Zimmerman looked at a young black kid and assumed he was a criminal.  The media assumed that since he was acquitted black people would go crazy and riot.  The lesson in this whole thing is that we need to stop making gross assumptions about groups of people.  Zimmerman didn't know whether or not Martin was a criminal, just like the media didn't know there would be riots.  So the lesson should be that as a society we need to stop acting on these assumptions.  The worst part of the media's assumption about riots is that now they are making up riots.  The reports of riots in Los Angeles have been refuted by the businesses that have been reportedly damaged. 

(link:  http://www.salon.com/2013/07/16/new_trayvon_lie_media_lapd_falsely_report_rowdy_protests/)

[jaedmc]

I think getting caught up in the racism bit is missing the larger picture. There is a philosophy that Zimmerman bought into which is that in order to solve a problem he need to kill someone.47 schoolage kids have been killed in Chicago this year. 192 have been shot. We got a problem. It's not a gun problem, it's a fucking brain problem. And the quicker we peel back the layers and figure out why we're so goddamned dumb the better.

 

Racism is a problem, but it's a bullshit problem that we need to realize is controlling us. We're being trained to fear each other and it's putting a barrier up so we can't properly communicate with each other, Because we can't get past the "You asian, do you know Kung fu? Or "you black, do you still hate me for slavery?" shit. We have to understand there's no such thing as post-racial, because we can't not classify each other by our culture. It's apart of us and who we are. We just need to be more open to those differences and just accept that they're there. (And probably not assume all Black/White/Latino/Muslimetcetc people are up to no good.)

 

Then we can move on to the bigger problems. Like, How do we get Honey Boo Boo off the air.

[J.T.]

I think getting caught up in the racism bit is missing the larger picture. There is a philosophy that Zimmerman bought into which is that in order to solve a problem he need to kill someone.

 

Not just that, but there is a law on the books that allowed him to do just that and not have the act considered to be murder.  Putting Zimmerman in jail for the rest of his life or letting him go will not stop the next like-minded person from doing the same thing and being allowed to go his own way after someone else's loved one dies.

 

That fucking law needs to either be tightened up or repealed.  I fully support Stand Your Ground laws and Castle statutes when they allow me to defend my loved ones and my property.  I do not support them when they allow a wannabe cop turned vigilante to escalate a situation to the point where he felt compelled to gun down an unarmed boy in cold blood after being instructed by proper law enforcement to let the kid go about his business. 

 

Cold comfort though it may be, a Wrongful Death civil suit should be a slam dunk.  I would sue the pants off of Zimmerman so that he could never benefit financially from his saga.

[jaedmc]

For sure. That one paragraph in particular. fucks it allll up.

 

Of course my conspiracy theory was that this whole trial got amp'd up so that this issue could be used to secure the state(One of the swingiest of swing states) in the next couple of elections. Gubernatorial race coming up in 2014. Then the big one in 2016. I'll guarantee you you'll see a political add asking if Trayvon had lived who would he vote for in his first election.

[Happ Hazzard]

Am I right in saying that the SYG law had nothing to do with this case? It was a straight self-defence, valid in all 50 states.

[Cristobal]

"Straight self-defense" is arguably a bit of a misnomer given it was a fight he essentially picked, and there's the argument to be had that without Florida's SYG law, maybe Zimmerman wouldn't feel so free to play vigilante, but while I think SYG laws are terrible ideas, especially when applied as liberally as Florida's are, you're right that the Zimmerman case is not really about SYG, because if Martin was on top of Zimmerman, then he had no ability to retreat, and thus SYG is irrelevant.

 

In any event, I think things like SYG distract from the larger issue of the conflict between what most Americans consider acceptable behavior and the sort of behavior our gun laws actually allow.

[J.T.]

Am I right in saying that the SYG law had nothing to do with this case? It was a straight self-defence, valid in all 50 states.

 

Yes and No. 

 

Florida's SYG law provided the legal framework for the self-defense immunity that Zimmerman expected to enjoy after the shooting.  You'd think that any situation involving someone being killed would absolutely have to result in someone going to jail off the back, but that was not the case.

 

If there were no SYG law to provide legal ambiguity about what to do with him, Zimmerman would've been arrested immediately after the incident, but that did not happen for weeks.

 

The idea that Zimmerman was not able to invoke the Duty to Retreat princple because Travyon attacked first really is bogus given that Zimmerman was instructed to stand down by police during his 911 call and refused. 

 

A reasonable person who was a member of the Neighborhood Watch would've followed police instruction.  it's right there in the organizational manual.  That was his opportunity to retreat.

 

Zimmerman was armed and he forced the confrontation because he wished to.  That alone makes him liable.

 

I am still trying to figure out why Florida went after Second Degree Murder charges and I can find no recourse but to blame the court of public opinion.  Aggravated Manslaughter can easily get you 25 years in the pen with some states having a mandatory ten year sentence before parole.  I'm not sure how it happened but "manslaughter" somehow got defined to be a slap on the wrist sort of charge when in actuality it would've been easier to prove and resulted in significant jail time.....

 

...  jail time that Zimmerman probably would've have survived to serve our the full sentence......

[Cristobal]

The idea that Zimmerman was not able to invoke Duty to Retreat princple because Travyon attacked first really is bogus given that Zimmerman was instructed to stand down by police during his 911 call.

 

Slight correction there in that he was instructed to stay away by the 911 operator, but operators/dispatchers do not have police powers, thus Zimmerman was not violating the law by simply approaching Martin. Whether other aspects of what he did violated the law is unclear, and the lack of evidence for that is ultimately where the reasonable doubt comes into play.

[Burgundy LaRue]

Zimmerman is worse than a racist.  He is a public fucking menace that would've shot anyone he "deduced" was a criminal whether he be black, latino or what have you, and there were laws in place in Florida that emboldened his philosophy and allowed him to carry a gun.  I am sorry that Trayvon is dead, but Zimmerman would've eventually killed someone in the course of trying to be a hero.

 

Why the prosecution didn't build a case on that logic is also astonishing.

 

While I think Zimmerman has racial predjudice in him, I agree that he would have killed someone sooner or later.  It's who he is.  He's determined to be Dirty Harry, when he's not even smart enough to be Paul Blart.  What's really sad is that Zimmerman thinks he did the world a favor with killing Trayvon.  Dude is Lock-Up come to life.  Scary as hell.

[jumbojustice]

Yes and No. 

 

Florida's SYG law provided the legal framework for the self-defense immunity.  If there were no SYG law to provide legal ambiguity about what to do with him, Zimmerman would've been arrested and held immediately after the shooting.  The idea that Zimmerman was not able to invoke the Duty to Retreat princple because Travyon attacked first really is bogus given that Zimmerman was instructed to stand down by police during his 911 call. 

 

A reasonable person who was a member of the Neighborhood Watch  would've followed police instruction.  it's right there in the organizational manual.

 

A case for self-contributory negligence leading to an unjustifiable homicide is right there.  The problem is that the SYG law is worded so horribly that it may as well be a fucking fortune cookie maxim that can be applicable to just about any situation.

 

I think you're right that the SYG law may have had something to do with Zimmerman not being arrested initially, but I don't think it had anything to do with his legal defense or the reasoning behind his aquittal. For the reasons Cristobal mentioned, he was just claiming plain ol' self defense, technically speaking. And ultimately, no matter how much you may think Zimmerman is an idiot for not listening to the police, or that his actions were racially motivated (as I do, in both cases), it couldn't be proven otherwise.

 

I think the real problem here comes down to gun laws more generally. Utlimately, I think Jae is right that it's a "brain problem", not a gun problem, but guns definitely exacerbate brain problems. Personally, I think it's crazy to let people carry handguns around in public (home defense I'm a little more sympathetic towards), but I understand that's the way it is in America and it isn't likely to change soon. What I would like to see is a law stating that, if you choose to carry a gun around, you waive your right to use it for self-defense in an alteracation that you initiate (as Zimmerman obviously did). That would stop people like Zimmerman (or just aggressive people in general) from picking fights, knowing they can blow the other guy away if things go sour. It would give people an incentive to avoid these sorts of incidents, rather than escalate them.

[J.T.]

Slight correction there in that he was instructed to stay away by the 911 operator, but operators/dispatchers do not have police powers, thus Zimmerman was not violating the law by simply approaching Martin. Whether other aspects of what he did violated the law is unclear, and the lack of evidence for that is ultimately where the reasonable doubt comes into play.

 

True enough but even if you split that hair, you have Zimmerman having the opportunity to retreat and not doing something you would expect a reasonable person to do.

 

I think you're right that the SYG law may have had something to do with Zimmerman not being arrested initially, but I don't think it had anything to do with his legal defense or the reasoning behind his aquittal.

 

His defense team did not invoke the SYG defense, because that would put the burden of proof on Zimmerman's defense to prove that he acted lawfully under the statute. 

 

Zimmerman's defense team took the wiser route and shifted burden of proof on the the prosecution and made them build the case for murder.  Since Zimmerman alone has the full account of what happened, the defense is free to paint whatever picture of Trayvon Martin that they wished to.

 

If there is a civil case, then Zimmerman's defense team will undoubtedly attempt to invoke the SYG law to provide their client with immunity because 1) Zimmerman already has an acquittal in the books and 2) Burden of Proof on Zimmerman to show he acted lawfully under the SYG law is significantly less than it would've been in a criminal trial.

[Cristobal]

True enough but even if you split that hair, you have Zimmerman having the opportunity to retreat and not doing so. 

 

Well, if you buy all of the defense team's story, (which I don't, but there's no viable witness either way,) it was Martin who was the aggressor in both the initial meeting and the ensuing confrontation.

[supremebve]

Am I right in saying that the SYG law had nothing to do with this case? It was a straight self-defence, valid in all 50 states.

I'm not sure that you can pursue a person and call it self-defense in most states.  The biggest issue I have is how can you calim self-defense when the killer is the only one armed and has a 50lb. weight advantage.  Why can't people just shoot whoever they want and claim they feared for their life?

[glfpunk]

I don't think SYG matters in this case at all. They rushed it to trial and went for murder which they were never going to get. If they had taken their time and went after him for manslaughter I think the chances are very good they'd have got him for that. I don't think there's as much a problem with the laws as there was with the legal team involved. They screwed up plain and simple. Zimmerman didnt walk because of some loophole or something, they just completely botched the case and made bad decisions.

[J.T.]

Well, if you buy all of the defense team's story, (which I don't, but there's no viable witness either way,) it was Martin who was the aggressor in both the initial meeting and the ensuing confrontation.

 

Precisely.  The prosecution didn't do nearly enough to discredit Zimmerman as an unreliable witness and they had a wealth of ammunition to do so. 

 

Trying to poke holes in Zimmerman's account of events was idiotic because no one else is alive to refute his testimony.  The prosecution should've poiinted out the numerous lies Zimmerman has told concernig his finances or his knowledge of SYG and attacked his credibility.  The prosecution should've done everything in it's power to get Zimmerman to take the stand and defend himself in his own words.

 

It's what got Jodi Arias to hang herself and it probably would've gotten George to hang himself as well.

[jumbojustice]

I'm not sure that you can pursue a person and call it self-defense in most states.  The biggest issue I have is how can you calim self-defense when the killer is the only one armed and has a 50lb. weight advantage.  Why can't people just shoot whoever they want and claim they feared for their life?

I think that's a pretty weak argument. An older, fatter person might have a 50 pound advantage on a younger, more atheletic person, but the younger person may still be more dangerous in a fight (especially if the smaller person has some training). And having a gun doesn't negate your right to defend yourself (though I think it should, as I mentioned above, in cases where the person with the gun is clearly the instigator).

 

As far as I can tell, you can just shoot whoever you want and claim it was self-defense, as long as there are no witnesses to prove otherwise. I think that's a good argument for not letting people carry guns around.

[supremebve]

I think that's a pretty weak argument. An older, fatter person might have a 50 pound advantage on a younger, more atheletic person, but the younger person may still be more dangerous in a fight (especially if the smaller person has some training). And having a gun doesn't negate your right to defend yourself (though I think it should, as I mentioned above, in cases where the person with the gun is clearly the instigator).

 

As far as I can tell, you can just shoot whoever you want and claim it was self-defense, as long as there are no witnesses to prove otherwise. I think that's a good argument for not letting people carry guns around.

I'm not saying that a smaller person can't win a fight against a bigger person, what I'm saying is that if you have a gun and a fifty pound weight advantage what are the odds that your life is in any sort of danger. 

[glfpunk]

So if you have a gun then your life can't be in danger? That's an odd point of view.

[supremebve]

So if you have a gun then your life can't be in danger? That's an odd point of view.

Not what I said.  Your life can be in danger in plenty of situations for plenty of reasons, but getting into a physical altercation with an unarmed person when you are armed and have a significant size advantage isn't high on the list.  Don't get me wrong Trayvon Martin could be as strong as an ox, but odds are he would have just taken an ass whooping and went home.

[J.T.]

So if you have a gun then your life can't be in danger?

 

Of course you can be in danger.

 

Furthermore, if you are some Death Wish-esque wannabe with a gun and an attitude, you are more than likely to place yourself in danger much like Zimmerman did.  Guns are ridiculously empowering to those not responsbile enough to handle them.  Zimmerman willingly put himself into a situation that he had neither the temperment nor the training to handle properly....

 

....yet another facet of this bullshit that the prosecution failed to emphasize.....