So... Florida and Zimmerman, huh?

[geonuc]

This was a trial court. The judge didn't render an opinion. The jury did.

I really don't want to argue any of the points of this case. I learned my lesson. I think the Florida law here is bad, but I think the jury came to the right decision, based on what I've read and what I know about the law. I don't like allowing people to defend themselves with deadly force when they can retreat. I also don't agree with neighborhood watches carrying firearms. In my legal world, Zimmerman would have been legally required to heed the dispatcher's instructions to disengage.

I'm sorry I get defensive about these legal threads, but to answer SFC's question, no, I can't explain legal theory here. I had to go to law school to learn it and I'm not a law professor. I'm happy to provide legal points such as I did with double jeopardy and noting that trial judges don't normally write opinions, but when it gets down to arguing what is right and wrong, well, everyone has their opinion.

[The Supreme Canuck]

Wait... there are no written decisions at the trial level in criminal proceedings in the US?

Huh. That's... huh.

Edit: I mean, obviously there's going to be no opinion by the judge since the jury is the finder of fact and no legal question can be at issue, but there's no written decision of any sort beyond the verdict? Fine. I guess I'll look at the instruction to the jury, in that case...

[SciFi Chick]

This was a trial court. The judge didn't render an opinion. The jury did.

I really don't want to argue any of the points of this case. I learned my lesson. I think the Florida law here is bad, but I think the jury came to the right decision, based on what I've read and what I know about the law. I don't like allowing people to defend themselves with deadly force when they can retreat. I also don't agree with neighborhood watches carrying firearms. In my legal world, Zimmerman would have been legally required to heed the dispatcher's instructions to disengage.

1. He wasn't carrying his weapon as a neighborhood watch. He wasn't on duty that night. He was carrying the weapon because he'd had issues with a pit bull and that's what he was advised to do.

2. I agree that he should be legally required to heed the dispatcher's instructions, but whether he was legally required or not, the reality is that he did heed the dispatcher's instructions. The media reported otherwise at one point, but they had it wrong.

[FZR1KG]

As SFC pointed out there are different versions of what happened but the only one that we've heard that makes logical sense with the evidence at hand says he did follow the advice of the dispatcher, and he couldn't retreat because Martin was on top of him beating him.
The firearm possession isn't a crime and he wasn't on watch at the time.

But I understand what you're saying geonuc, I had the same opinions originally. I just couldn't reconcile those opinions with the evidence so I was compelled to change my opinion.
I'd love to hear an alternative that fits the evidence so well but I have to admit that I'll be forever stuck on the fact that from the time Zimmerman said Martin was running, a full one and a half minutes went by with Zimmerman calmly talking on the phone with the dispatch officer. Martins residence was less than 30 seconds way with a mild jog. That tells me right there that Martin did not chose to go home and that Zimmerman was not in pursuit of Martin or in breach of the officers supposed command, "we don't need you to do that".

That was the loose thread for me that unravelled everything else. Now I wonder why others don't see it when two days ago, I didn't see it myself. Doesn't mean I'm right however. I just can't see an alternative and am willing and open to look at one that does fit the evidence.

[SciFi Chick]

What FZ said. It's not like we have some investment in Zimmerman. We do, however, have a major investment in truth and not just blindly following the ratings soaked media - which we were both guilty of doing at first, and we don't like that we made that mistake yet again!

[squ1d]

After chatting to Zee on FB (because I won the thread with my epic stone casting), I have distilled my opinion into the following points:

1) I don't believe race was a factor

2) You shouldn't stalk people in your car

3) You shouldn't get out of your car and then chase said people either

4) If you do 3 and 4, you are provoking someone, whether you stopped chasing them or not

5) Provoked people tend to throw punches

6) When they punch you and you aren't good at punching back, you shouldn't shoot them dead

7) If you do, you should be found guilty of manslaughter

[squ1d]

8) This thread took the laughter out of manslaughter

[FZR1KG]

Well, if (4) is valid then I present:

(a) Don't walk between houses on a rainy night wearing a hoodie in a unfamiliar neighbourhood without expecting someone to wonder W.T.F. you are doing and confront you.
(b) Don't then come at them all angry saying, "You got a problem', "You do now".
(c) If a and b occur you are presenting yourself as a thug/criminal with violence issues.
(d) people that get attacked by violent possible criminals expect the worst outcome for themselves.
(e) Don't expect to win the fight, you , they or both may become dead or seriously injured.
(f) If you have a chance to go on your way like a normal person would, say walking on the footpath, sidewalk, or explain why you were between houses, do so
(g) don't come back after about two minutes to confront the guy wondering what you were doing after making a run for it.
(h) its not about racism, its about dumbassed behaviour.

[Thumper]

Hogwash. I agree with Squid. However I tend to believe race was a factor, it doesn't really matter. I expressly agree with Number 8. I've gotten nauseous just thinking about some of the crap in this thread. So I think that's probably it for me.

[Rebis]

Once in a while (though seldom) we watch Bill O'Reilly.

Night before last, during a discussion with two guests, Bill said he figured there'd be negative reactions by some people. Can't recall his exact wording, but I'm unsure if he used the word "riot(s)."

Yesterday morning some journalist (for the NYT?) "quoted" Bill in a racist manner: That black people would riot.

That's NOT what Bill said. Deliberately taken out of context.

The journalist (Simon is last name?) is either white or Jewish.

What's the point of trying to inflame more racial hostilities? Especially when Bill's got it documented word-for-word on video??

This nation's media is beyond fucked up.

[FZR1KG]

Hogwash. I agree with Squid. However I tend to believe race was a factor, it doesn't really matter. I expressly agree with Number 8. I've gotten nauseous just thinking about some of the crap in this thread. So I think that's probably it for me.

Bullshit!
I agree with myself.

[SciFi Chick]

Hogwash. I agree with Squid. However I tend to believe race was a factor, it doesn't really matter. I expressly agree with Number 8. I've gotten nauseous just thinking about some of the crap in this thread. So I think that's probably it for me.

Bullshit!
I agree with myself.

I agree with you too. Not sure how researching and studying the evidence and coming to a nonemotional conclusion is crap, but whatever.

[Rebis]

I've just now seen a headline (now gone - Yahoo) of The Black Panthers offering 10K for George Zimmerman.

[Rebis]

I've just now seen a headline (now gone - Yahoo) of The Black Panthers offering 10K for George Zimmerman.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/03/26/149399082/new-black-panther-party-offers-10k-bounty-for-george-zimmerman

Also calling for 10,000 black men to "find him."

[FZR1KG]

No no. This isn't about a lynching. Its about justice...

[Thumper]

Sigh..I told myself I was done with this thread. I was as disturbed as I was alarmed at the physical discomfort I felt reading some of the crap in this thread. I tried "editing" this post in my head at least a hundred times yesterday. I gave up when each time no matter how carefully I started, it ended in a hate filled rant. But it's nawing at me and I'm having trouble getting things done, I came up with something in the shower this morning that started to sound somewhat reasonable, at least to me. Feel free to ignore as I wish I could have ignored some of the more ignorant and arrogant posts in this thread:
Scholars pointed out that it would take multiple volumes to debunk and contradict the fallacies, misconceptions, and outright lies in Rush Limbaugh's first book. I could, point by point, try to disect all of the individual things I find "wrong" in the previous posts. It would be difficult, it would be extrememly time consuming, it would be depressing. What would be the point? Certainly there would be no satisfaction. By wielding my literary club, I still wouldn't change anyone's opinion. Or maybe someone would finally agree with me (or pretend to agree with me) and move on to another thread/arguement that they hadn't lost interest in or thought they had a better chance of "winning."
Winning what? After I win this do I send it to Trayvon Martin's parents and say, "look, I won; all is well." A young innocent man was slaughtered. He wasn't doing anything wrong. He is forever a giant hole in the grieving hearts of his parents, family members, and all who loved him. A young life snuffed out senslessly before it could realize most of life's greatest gifts. Do I send this thread to George Zimmerman or his parents? His existence will be hell on Earth for the rest of his days. Hated by millions of people who never have, nor will ever meet him. A life filled with fear, anger, and regret.
Both of these men have been portrayed as the most villainous vile specimens humankind has to offer. Both have been portrayed as the most innocent benevolent saints that have ever walked the Earth. Obviously, the truth is somewhere in the middle. They are human beings complete with their hopes, dreams, faults, and biases. We can never know the biases or the exact circumstances that led to their fatal encounter (despite previous posts to the contrary.) Just that it didn't have to happen, it shouldn't have happened, it was sensless. And unfortunately, this case doesn't hold a monoply on senselessness, or tragedy. It happens alot. And it's soul crushing. Nothing I write here, no matter how well crafted, how well researched, no matter how loud or many times I say it means squat. It changes nothing.
Finally, to the race issue. I've seen racism, I've seen claims or excuses of racism when none exists. I've seen racism as a response to perceived racism. Not to long ago, I used to do the same thing Trayvon Martin was doing on the last night of his life. I would be visiting a friend in his neighborhood far from my own. I'd walk between buildings, across grass, along sidewalks, through the streets to the local convenience store. Substitute a cube of Busch Light and a large bag of Puff Corn Delights for Snapple and Skittles and I could be Trayvon Martin right? My daughter is getting to the age where she can briefly wander out of her parents' direct view for short periods of time. What if it had been me in place of Trayvon that night? What if it had been my daughter? George Zimmerman wouldn't have given either of us a second glance. We'd all be alive, happy, and healthy today.
Anyone who disagrees has some soul searching to do.
Now if you'll excuse me, I seriously think I have to go throw up.

[FZR1KG]

Hogwash. I agree with Squid. However I tend to believe race was a factor, it doesn't really matter. I expressly agree with Number 8. I've gotten nauseous just thinking about some of the crap in this thread. So I think that's probably it for me.

Bullshit!
I agree with myself.

You read the sarcasm in this post right Thumper?
You wrote hogwash, I wrote bullshit, you agreeing with squid, me, agreeing with myself...

I was as disturbed as I was alarmed at the physical discomfort I felt reading some of the crap in this thread. I tried "editing" this post in my head at least a hundred times yesterday. I gave up when each time no matter how carefully I started, it ended in a hate filled rant.

That says to me you are too emotionally involved to make logical decisions. Been there done that. I always take a break, let some time pass and revisit later.
I do it because it often lets me see things differently.

Feel free to ignore as I wish I could have ignored some of the more ignorant and arrogant posts in this thread:

I'm assuming you're referring to me since I've been the most active on the board and you directed some contempt towards my posts.
Its interesting to note that when I did not really research the case but had an opinion that condemned the decision and Zimmerman no one found me ignorant or arrogant, yet, after spending three days looking at evidence and reading as much different views as I can then present it here I am accused of being ignorant and arrogant. When I look at the definitions of both of those words, the researching of this case is exactly the opposite of what those words imply.
Unless you were commenting about my posts before I threw out what I thought I knew and started actually looking into it. Then I agree with you. I was both ignorant and arrogant.

I could, point by point, try to disect all of the individual things I find "wrong" in the previous posts. It would be difficult, it would be extrememly time consuming, it would be depressing. What would be the point?

The point would be to see if your thinking stands up to reason. For me engaging in a discussion is tuning my mind to better see the world and understand it.
I don't want to live in an imaginary world. There are too many people that have that issue already.
Too many people think there is way more racism that there is, too many think there is not much racism in the world, both views distort reality and everything those people look at gets coloured by those views.
I want to get clear lenses, not rose coloured glasses or black glasses.
Just as with the glasses analogy, if you wear coloured glasses long enough your world looks normal, its only when you take them off all the things you couldn't see pop clearly into view.
That's why i discuss, that's why I look at different views, that's why I present my case.
So someone can show me where I'm not seeing things right and I can change and see the world for what it really is.
Sometimes its ugly as hell, sometimes its beautiful, but I strive to see both for what they really are not what I think they are.
Then my influence on others may allow them to see the real world as well.
I have a long way to go but that's the goal.
Not winning, learning.

[SciFiFisher]

I am told that in Florida (especially the area where this occurred) it's always about race. That there is institutionalized racism in the way the laws are enforced and the way that the laws are prosecuted. That young black males can expect to be harassed and stopped by law enforcement just because they are walking down the street. I am assured that if the situation had turned out differently and Travon Martin had somehow managed to wrest the gun from George Zimmerman and shot him there would have been a conviction for murder. People are convinced that if Travon Martin was white George Zimmerman never would have given him a second look. Or that if Zimmerman had been black we would not have even heard about the case. And Zimmerman would be in jail now.

Essentially, no one who believes this is ever going to believe that race was not a factor. And as long as race was a factor, in their minds, George Zimmerman is guilty of a hate crime. If George Zimmerman is guilty of racial profiling and a hate crime then it doesn't matter what followed after that. He was an armed man going after a young black man with the intent to intimidate and/or kill.

They point to the verdict in Sanford FL as proof that race was a factor. The fact that Zimmerman was white and Martin was black gave his story more credibility. Travon Martin was the one on trial. George Zimmerman is well connected in the community and Martin was not. Power, race and influence once again trumping justice.

[SciFiFisher]

Thumper does raise a good point. In the midst of all the discussion there is one glaringly obvious truth. This was a tragedy. A young man is dead and another's life is (very likely) going to be a living hell for the foreseeable future.

It's very hard not to be emotional about issues that people feel passionately about. Things like equality, fairness, justice, compassion, empathy for others, and etc are all good things to be passionate about. In our debates about this case or others we should not forget that.

And that is(in part) what makes this case so difficult. Because there is nothing more passionate than a good man or woman trying to stand up for the noble passions that we rightly must stand up for if we are to call ourselves human.

I think it helps to step back from the passion and view it through the lens of logic and calm. But, I also believe that we must not squeeze all emotion out of our thinking. Because to do that would be to lose the noble passion that we must have if we want the world to change and become a better place.

[FZR1KG]

The fact that Zimmerman was white and Martin was black gave his story more credibility. Travon Martin was the one on trial. George Zimmerman is well connected in the community and Martin was not. Power, race and influence once again trumping justice.

But he's not white, he is mixed race with black heritage as well.
We may as well call Obama white.

[Rebis]

I'm white, husband is Hispanic (reverse of Zimmerman's parents)...and I can't understand why our children would be referred to only as "white" (except for certain agendas). They'd be biracial (we don't have children).

I sincerely hope this nation can pull it together.

That circumstance with racial slurs against Marc Anthony singing the national anthem is heartbreaking.

By 2050 there will be 4 major racial groups in the USA.

The idiots insulting Marc Anthony should stop to think how their grandkids might be treated in the year 2050. Because what we do today DOES affect the future.

I don't have children going into the future, and I'm concerned about it.

[FZR1KG]

Thumper does raise a good point. In the midst of all the discussion there is one glaringly obvious truth. This was a tragedy. A young man is dead and another's life is (very likely) going to be a living hell for the foreseeable future.

It's very hard not to be emotional about issues that people feel passionately about. Things like equality, fairness, justice, compassion, empathy for others, and etc are all good things to be passionate about. In our debates about this case or others we should not forget that.

And that is(in part) what makes this case so difficult. Because there is nothing more passionate than a good man or woman trying to stand up for the noble passions that we rightly must stand up for if we are to call ourselves human.

I think it helps to step back from the passion and view it through the lens of logic and calm. But, I also believe that we must not squeeze all emotion out of our thinking. Because to do that would be to lose the noble passion that we must have if we want the world to change and become a better place.

I've posted that this was a sad set of circumstances and I really believe they were.
I also feel for Martins parents but being killed doesn't absolve ones part in their own death.
Finding someone guilty of second degree murder when it doesn't fit that description won't solve anything.
Martins life is gone, Zimmermans life is no longer going to be the same.
There are now hate groups targeting him for what they feel is misjustice.

Then I look at other cases, OJ, the case in New york I posted where a white 16 year old was shot by a bigger more powerful and trained man, who happened to be black. The latter got very little attention, no outcries. The former got attention because of OJ on the freeway failing to pull over and that it was a celebrity murder.
It seems to me that the media hypes up the population to near frenzy levels by those who scream the loudest and right now, they happen to be screaming bloody murder here.

I have posed the question here that no one has touched, what would anyone of you do if you had a guy bigger than you knock you down and was pounding away and no one came while you were screaming for help?
As far as I can see, there is nothing to suggest this did not happen other than speculation.

What I see here is that Martin thought Zimmerman was a creepy guy.
Zimmerman thought Martin was a possible burglar.
Martin was beating what he thought was a creepy assed cracker.
Zimmerman thought he was being beaten by a violent burglar.

What I find both guilty of is that neither tried to diffuse the situation.
Both escalated it.
Zimmerman could have been more easy going, crack a joke or two, identify himself as a neighborhood watch person, though if Martin were a burglar that may make things worse.
Martin could have started a conversation, "Hey, thats a really nice house bla bla bla"
Instead they both seemed suspicious of the other.

I remember in Georgia we parked our car next to a motorbike.
i did what I normally do, look at it. The owner and his friend instantly thought the worst.
Came at me pretty fast with fight attitude.
So I started a chat about bikes. had a great chat, asked if I could take some pics. Tooke them, shook hands with the guy and went our way.
Would have been different if I gave attitude back, what, i'm looking at a bike in a public area, whats your fucking problem. I have the right to do that.
Wonder how that would have turned out.

In Atlanta, I approached a black guy talking to a white girl and he was holding his pitbull pup on a lead.
The people I was with all thought it was a bad idea.
Really?
I can't go and chat with a black guy holding a dog because it could be seen as provocation.
Fuck me, provoking what? Being friendly gets you into a fight now?
I went up, as I did the girl made a fast walk out of there in a bit of a panic.
I said hi, had a longish chat, patted his dog, I asked permission first. Said to the guy have a good night and he went out of his way to shake my hand.
I got to meet a local and have a chat about dogs and Atlanta in one case and got to have a chat about bikes in the other.

The problem I see here in the USA is that almost everyone is suspicious of everyone to the point that they can no longer identify real suspicious behaviour.
That needs to change. That's why I think Martin died. That's why I think the kid in NY died.
All this BS about race is making things worse not better.
As such, given no real reason to think the Zimmerman case was about racism it makes sense to not make it about racism.
Its self defeating and will only escalate things.
Too late for many though.

[FZR1KG]

With regards to people walking between houses, there is one case I remember in Australia after the bushfire.
It was about two days after and there were reports of looters (media hype once again and we bought into it...again)
Were were in our house and I saw some people walking down our driveway between our place and the neighbours into our backyard.
I went out to confront them.
Our neighbour came out quickly to let me know that they their dog was the one that died due to smoke inhalation in our yard and he let then know where we buried it. He gave them permission to go. We have a very good relationship with him and he looked after our place when we were not there. They wanted to say goodbye.

When we first bought the house we came there and there was a woman looking in the windows.
There was no for sale sign on the house ever.
Turned out she was a friend of the neighbours wanting to see the place.
It was our property and she shouldn't have been there and she knew it.
She appologised and that was that.

Both happened on clear warm days, not a rainy night.
This is in a small country town that had one road, not a neighborhood that has has a had recent burglaries.
A person meandering between houses is a suspicious activity that needs investigating. Even in a friendly Australian country town.

[Thumper]

At no time did I ever say that the jury came up with a "wrong" verdict. If I were on the jury I would have had to vote not guilty as well. Regardless of the shoddy police investigation that did not safeguard evidence, the poor investigation and testimony of the medical examiner, the less than steller prosecution that was unable present a convining case or rise to the challenge of a great defense strategy, or the brilliant defense team that flipped the case and put Travon Martin on trial, if I respect the law, I would have had to vote not guilty.
Maybe you don't remember, this case is 15-16 months old. I've been studying and observing it for a year. My Dad and I took apart the self-defense and stand your ground statute piece by piece. There was a thread here on 2.0, I may have started it. Everyone, well at least most everyone concurred that Zimmerman would fry. I disagreed. I voiced that the statute as written would not support a guilty verdict in this case without alot more evidence that was lost forever.

And again and again you present things as cold hard facts that are pure speculation. Most legal scholars commenting agree that the evidence in the case as presented was highly ambiguous. Ambiguous favors the defense. Zimmerman did not testify in the case. Nothing Zimmerman says anyway is a fact unless it can be duly corroborated. We have very very little to go on. And obviously the inconsistancies in his previous statements were not near enough to overcome the eventual outcome.

Like my Dad said after interpreting the Florida statute, the lesson her is if you live in an area that has this kind of law what are you supposed to do? You arm yourself and at the first hint of any type of confrontation, you sh00t and you sh00t to ki||. Then it's only your word that matters and all you have to say is, "I was scared."

Zimmerman if not 100% responsible for this tragic death is certainly mostly responsible. The step after step after step that he took to get to that situation....The conscious decisions that he made....slightly change any one of them and nothing happened.

[pumpkinpi]

The fact that Zimmerman was white and Martin was black gave his story more credibility. Travon Martin was the one on trial. George Zimmerman is well connected in the community and Martin was not. Power, race and influence once again trumping justice.

But he's not white, he is mixed race with black heritage as well.
We may as well call Obama white.

Maybe someone else said this. If Martin were white, the media and public would be emphasizing Zimmerman's mixed race.