Zimmerman Not Guilty

[Jack Half-a-Prayer]

So yeah, I disagree with Mr. The Hunted up there.  

 

You've systematically got a lot of things wrong about the Zimmerman trial by not really paying attention to the evidence and/or trial, why stop now.

 

At the end of the day, there wasn't sufficient evidence to establish Zimmerman intended to outright murder Martin that night, and there certainly wasn't sufficient evidence to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that his actions were not in line with the defense's argument of self-defense.

 

Bottom line, the end.

 

So all that's left is people's insistence that SOCIAL JUSTICE demands we, as society, make Zimmerman pay by, I don't know, charge him with a hate crime (even though they've had a year and a half to already do that, the FBI itself did not conclude such a crime took place, and the will of the American people - overwhelmingly, it would seem - is against that) or threaten him and his family with death threats, or what have you.

 

Well.  We don't really abide by "social justice," we abide by the rule of law.  Or should, that is, unless you just want to throw your hands up in the air and say "fuck it," and let things be judged merely by the capricious whim of the populace.

 

[but even then, in this particular case, you would still lose .]

[Cristobal]

Bottom line, the end.

 

Then you're still talking about it why?

[Kuetsar]

Thought that went without saying.

It does, but sometimes it needs to be resaid. I found that from a facebook listing(i believe called the Bat-its a Hunter S Thompson tribute feed), so I only went to the site in question to get a link, and will use mind bleach to erase the web site from my mind. . .

[Niners Fan in CT]

You've systematically got a lot of things wrong about the Zimmerman trial by not really paying attention to the evidence and/or trial, why stop now.

 

 

 

I watched every second of the trial (I'm using it for a project I'm working on) and in my mind it is a manslaughter case. Where does that leave us?

[Victator]

For those who remember Jack Half A Prayer from the old current events folder. He was very pro death penalty. Yet here he preaches restraint and understanding. How strange

[T.Rex-n-effeckx]

 

Why are you trying to paint me as a rape apologist and a racist, was that really called for? From an admin no less. You managed to put good points forward but did I piss you off that much by having a differing opinion that it warranted such childish behavior next to the better thought out points?

 

 

I'm not going to get an apology, probably a personal ban but I was putting forward what I think and you decided to attack my character. You got some maturing to do and some better discussion tactics to learn.

I've reread what I wrote and I have no idea what I said that offended you.No idea where I attacked your character.No idea why you think you are going to be banned.

Thus far the only people in this thread probably deserving of personal warning are Dolfan in NYC, jeadmc for posting essentially ORLY gifs.

 

You said Zimmerman's version of events was proved by the physical evidence. 

I asked for examples of physical evidence that backed up his story.

I asked if you had watched the trial.

Based on Zimmerman's version of events you claim that (in hypothetical situation where Martin was armed) MArtin couldn't have claimed self defense. I asked why you believe that version of events?

You questioned the speed of Martin's movements, I questioned why it matters if a guy moves fast or slow?

You questioned why Martin didn't scream (there is an argument as to who screamed for help), and I questioned if it matters to you if a rape victim screams or not. You took this to be me accusing you of being a rape apologist. That wasn't my intent. Yes, I'm not someone who has a ton of respect for victim blaming, but there clearly is a segment of the population that feels a victim needs to behave in a certain manner to be a "legit" victim. Wanted to know where you stood on that.You asked why didn't Martin tell Zimmerman what he was doing in the neighborhood when Zimmerman asked. I pointed out that Zimmerman never asked nor self identified, and asked why you would think Martin should instinctively know to self identify when being pursued.

You mentioned Martin's violent history, I mentioned Zimmerman's violent history.

You suggested that Zimmerman wasn't a good neighborhood watch captain, I pointed out that he wasn't an actual neighborhood watch block captain, and that the national neighborhood watch has distanced themselves from him (by self identifying as neighborhood watch captain while doing things that neighborhood watch teaches against-following/chasing "suspect", carrying a gun, etc--Zimmerman has put legit neighborhood watch folks at risk) 

You said that racism is a problem that  should be combated but that this wasn't an example of racism. I asked how you define racism.

 

I have no idea what was said in that conversation that you think displays a lack of maturity or was an attack on your character.

I never mentioned rape or my views on what is and is not racism.

 

 

You said "There is a time to fight racism but this is not the case to do it.", That is an opening on the views of what is and is not racism.

 

Racism is when someone or a group holds beliefs another race is inferior (or superior), nothing in this case showed that and nothing showed Zimmerman had a hatred towards blacks.

 

For the most part I don't care about professed beliefs, I care more about behavior and actions.http://www.economist.com/node/21572091This is a story about a guy who did not like being on a plane with a crying baby:

Mr Hundley reacted increasingly aggressively to her child's discomfort, eventually shouting at her to get her "nigger kid" to shut up before slapping the child across the face.

Of course, sworn affidavits don't necessarily present the full story. Aside from the alleged slap, Mr Hundley’s lawyer is concerned about the racial element. Marcia Shein told CNN: "This has escalated into a racist issue and I want to be clear he is not a racist." She went on to say that "even if her client did use the slur, it does not make him a racist".

 

From where I sit, if you tell someone to "Shut up your nigger kid" and then slap the infant, your actions are racist...it doesn't matter what your professed beliefs are. 

 

 

[glfpunk]

I watched every second of the trial (I'm using it for a project I'm working on) and in my mind it is a manslaughter case. Where does that leave us?

This.  All the evidence suggests this.  A lot of people still push really hard on the "armed man murdered an unarmed black teenager" line as if it isn't an infinitely more complicated situation than that.  Does Trayvon get shot if Zimmerman stays in his vehicle on the phone the whole time? Most likely not.  Does Trayvon get shot if he doesn't react the way that he did? Most likely not.  Does that mean that every person approached by someone on the street should have to submit to the will of whoever is initiating the conversation? No.  And that points to a wrong-doing in this case by Zimmerman which to me points to how they could have secured a guilty manslaughter verdict had they not been so inept in the prosecution.  

[J.T.]

Well, it appears that Zimmerman helped rescue a family of four from an overturned SUV.  Whle there are a few "I wonder if he keeps spike strips in the trunk of his car?" jokes are flying around the office, hopefully this incident is George's actual character coming through and he will be able to ride this bit of redemption to a normal life. 

 

I still find his lack of empathy when the verdict was read far too disturbing to really think well of this guy.  It made his previous apology on the stand seem rather ingenuine.

[Bustronaut]

Further reports qualify the "rescue" as helping them up after they'd already gotten out of the SUV.

[J.T.]

Further reports qualify the "rescue" as helping them up after they'd already gotten out of the SUV.

 

Yeah, I am doing my best to give him grudging Samaratan points for actually checking on the family.  It is difficult.

[Cristobal]

Do I have to be the one to make the "I bet the family were white" joke?

[J.T.]

Do I have to be the one to make the "I bet the family were white" joke?

 

The joke works better when the family is black. 

 

That allows you to start off with "George Zimmerman and Alphonzo Rachel were driving to Miami, right?" and finish with, "Allen West?  Shit, I wouldn't have shot out their tires if I had known that!"

[Control]

Since y'all seem so familiar with the case and Florida law, I've got to ask: wouldn't Florida's "Stand Your Ground" laws govern a plea of self defense in this case? Everyone's saying that Zimmerman didn't use SYG, he used self defense, but if SYG is the law of the land, then surely it governs whether or not self defense applies, no? For instance, if someone broke into my house, I killed him, and a murder case ensued, I wouldn't plea "asshole was in my house uninvited so I'm allowed to shoot him," I'd plea self defense, and laws governing property (or whatever) would influence the strength of my defense, right? Or am I wrong? 

[T.Rex-n-effeckx]

It would have been so much cooler if he tried to recreate Cronenberg's Crash vs. Paul Haggis' Crash.

[J.T.]

Since y'all seem so familiar with the case and Florida law, I've got to ask: wouldn't Florida's "Stand Your Ground" laws govern a plea of self defense in this case? Everyone's saying that Zimmerman didn't use SYG, he used self defense, but if SYG is the law of the land, then surely it governs whether or not self defense applies, no? For instance, if someone broke into my house, I killed him, and a murder case ensued, I wouldn't plea "asshole was in my house uninvited so I'm allowed to shoot him," I'd plea self defense, and laws governing property (or whatever) would influence the strength of my defense, right? Or am I wrong? 

 

I hate prefacing shit with the Lawyer's Reply, but "it depends."

 

Zimmerman's defense did not use SYG as the cornerstone of their defense because it is a law and that would saddle them with the burden of proving that Zimmerman's actions were in compliance with the statute when he killed Trayvon Martin.  It was far easier to merely defend against the state's case by making the prosecution prove that Zimmerman's actions constituted Second Degree Murder or Manslaughter.

 

The problem with using self-defense statutes like SYG or the Castle Doctrine as egal challenges is that there are such broad legal definitions of  "duty to escape" and "reasonable person."  Using your example of shooting a burglar in your home, you'd may still face some sort of criminal charge or have a civil wrongful death claim filed against you in civil court if there is any doubt that you:

 

1. Had the opportunity to either escape the situation or

 

2. Pursue a non-violent route but chose not to.

 

To me, a "resonable person" would shoot the fucker on sight the first chance he got, but a jury might conclude that a "resonable person" would either let the burglar take the items and escape because that's what insurance is for or a "resonable person" would try to flee and avoid being placed into a situation where he had no choice but to meet violence with violence. 

 

Bottom line is that when it comes to legal defense, your personal philosophy really is irrelelvant. What you can persuade a jury to conclude about something is what really matters.  IMO, the prosecution loss that case because they did not challenge Zimmerman's credibility nor did they sell their interpretation of "duty to flee."  The 911 calls were prima facea evidence that could've established the logic that if Zimmerman had listened to the dispatcher and stood down, he would not have put himself into a position where he had to shoot Trayvon Martin and thus had no right to claim self-defense.

[glfpunk]

The 911 calls were prima facea evidence that could've established the logic that if Zimmerman had listened to the dispatcher and stood down, he would not have put himself into a position where he had to shoot Trayvon Martin and thus had no right to claim self-defense.

 

 

Still determined to get this wrong I guess.    

[J.T.]

 

The 911 calls were prima facea evidence that could've established the logic that if Zimmerman had listened to the dispatcher and stood down, he would not have put himself into a position where he had to shoot Trayvon Martin and thus had no right to claim self-defense.

 

 

Still determined to get this wrong I guess.    

 

 

Out of all of that, you nitpick at one detail I regretfully did not fully flesh out to your liking.

 

Bottom line is that Zimmerman forced the confrontation despite having opportunity not to and someone died.  Since he was found Not Guilty rather than Innocent, the devil in the details could return to haunt him in a civil case.

 

Zimmerman's defense got the acquittal because the prosecution never established clear interpretations (or more importantly, the prosecution's interpretation) of concepts like when the duty to escape (the mortar of any self defense case) begins or even what constitutes Second Degree Murder. 

 

The "leave well enough alone" path to putting Zimmerman behind bars was right there.

[LooseCannon]

Zimmerman's defense got the acquittal because the prosecution never established clear interpretations (or more importantly, the prosecution's interpretation) of concepts like when the duty to escape (the mortar of any self defense case) begins or even what constitutes Second Degree Murder.

Zimmerman's defense got the acquittal because the prosecution never established that Zimmerman initiated physical contact.

[J.T.]

 

Zimmerman's defense got the acquittal because the prosecution never established clear interpretations (or more importantly, the prosecution's interpretation) of concepts like when the duty to escape (the mortar of any self defense case) begins or even what constitutes Second Degree Murder.

Zimmerman's defense got the acquittal because the prosecution never established that Zimmerman initiated physical contact.

 

 

Because they also did not establish their definition of duty to escape or when it should have begun.  Zimmerman may or may not have initiated physical contact but he did set the confrontation into motion by deciding to shadow Trayvon.  He could've just let the kid go about his business since there really was no cause to assume that Travyon had done anything wrong.

 

No store alarms, nothing on police band.  Just suspicion.

 

But you know... these assholes always get away.

 

And like I said before, if you roll up on me in an obviously confrontational and possibly hostile manner and I don't know who you are and you suddenly reach into your pockets for something (Zimmerman went for his phone), I am going after you first and I don't care if you were just reaching for a tic tac.

 

Which also shows that the prosecution never bothered to define how they felt that Travyon as a "reasonable person" should react to that situation.  I personally belive that a reasonable person would want to avoid getting shot or stabbed and either flee or fight.  He wouldn't just wait around to confirm whether or not the other guy produced a weapon because that gives the other guy the opportunity to use said weapon.

[glfpunk]

See these are guesses and assumptions.  My personal opinion is that Zimmerman has a screw loose as evidenced by his repeated 911 calls over the years and I think he was too over-zealous that night.  I don't think he should have gotten out of the car but I would not go so far as to say that set the confrontation in motion. 

 

If you take Zimmerman out of the equation and replace him with a normal person then I say the actions alone do not paint him as guilty of setting the confrontation in motion.  The act of calling the police on a suspicious person and exiting your vehicle for any reason whatsoever do not make you guilty of what transpires after that.  It's that actions that happen after that that are the key. 

 

So based on that, to get anything out of the trial you have to go another direction. 

[Bustronaut]

If you replace him with a normal person, nothing actually happens, so no trial needed.

[J.T.]

If you take Zimmerman out of the equation and replace him with a normal person then I say the actions alone do not paint him as guilty of setting the confrontation in motion.  The act of calling the police on a suspicious person and exiting your vehicle for any reason whatsoever do not make you guilty of what transpires after that. 

 

Yes it does actually if you are building a case of self defense because that is obvious contributory negligence in defiance of duty to retreat since a normal person would stay in their car and avoid a confrontation with a possibly armed suspect... but not Zimmerman since he was definintely armed.

 

And let's be real here. You're not just leaving your vehicle for "any reason whatsovever," man.  If the end result is a dead kid, it was obvious that you went off on your own to pursue the suspect and you weren't afraid of an armed confrontation because you were also packing heat.

[LooseCannon]

Zimmerman's defense got the acquittal because the prosecution never established clear interpretations (or more importantly, the prosecution's interpretation) of concepts like when the duty to escape (the mortar of any self defense case) begins or even what constitutes Second Degree Murder.

Zimmerman's defense got the acquittal because the prosecution never established that Zimmerman initiated physical contact.

 Because they also did not establish their definition of duty to escape or when it should have begun.  Zimmerman may or may not have initiated physical contact but he did set the confrontation into motion by deciding to shadow Trayvon.  He could've just let the kid go about his business since there really was no cause to assume that Travyon had done anything wrong.

Zimmerman following Martin wasn't a guarantee that some sort of physical confrontation would have happened. He has a legal right to see what a stranger is up to in his neighborhood. If he does so, he isn't necessarily asking for a fight any more than a woman who makes out with a man is asking for sex so that anything that happens later that night can't possibly be rape.The prosecution failed because it didn't launch an all-out, scorched earth attack on the character of George Zimmerman.

[Jingus]

He has a legal right to see what a stranger is up to in his neighborhood.

Where in the Constitution is that one mentioned?  Life, liberty, and pursuit of unarmed innocent teenagers?

[glfpunk]

Where does it say you have to sit in your car otherwise you're guilty?