FWIS3

Yeah. I think someone fucked up. At the very least, the criminal laws in Florida are horseshit. I really want to read the judge's decision in the case, because I want to know how this failed.

Up here, Zimmerman goes to jail. No self-defence claim would stick, because he fails the reasonable person standard: no reasonable human being in his situation would feel that he or she was under threat of imminent harm or risk of death. The shooting is thus some flavour of homicide. Simple.

Not so in Florida, though! On CNN, the state prosecutor kept going on about how complicated self-defence law is. Well, I don't know about Florida, but it's dead simple around these parts. If it's "the most complicated" area of law in Florida, then Florida's self-defence laws are broken. Wholly and entirely. Period.

...I really want to see that decision.

(Also, as an aside... can someone explain to me why the prosecution kept thanking the media for "respecting their privacy"? What the fuck does that even mean?)

Also, I'm seeing a lot of comments defending Zimmerman, saying Martin shouldn't have been outside, saying that this has nothing at all to do with race.

Comments like this make me want to set your entire country on fire; just scorch it right down to the bedrock. Sorry about the people who aren't idiots, but there are too many assholes and I'm too angry.

The Supreme Canuck wrote:Also, I'm seeing a lot of comments defending Zimmerman, saying Martin shouldn't have been outside, saying that this has nothing at all to do with race.

Comments like this make me want to set your entire country on fire; just scorch it right down to the bedrock. Sorry about the people who aren't idiots, but there are too many assholes and I'm too angry.

i'm sure that i speak for all of my fellow citizens when i thank you for not setting our country on fire.

emily bazelon's essay in slate http://www.slate.com discusses the implications of the relevant florida laws.

as for mr. zimmerman, as a friend said, may he receive all that he has given.

The biggest problem that I see in all this is (even if none of it is a crime) who started all of this?

Yeah, Zimmerman could only be tried for criminal actions. If, however, he could be tried for blatant stupidity, he'd be locked up right now.
Granted, Trayvon Martin might be doing 90 days on the same charge, but he'd be alive (hopefully).
There are no winners in this urinary Olympiad...not the state of Florida, not George Zimmerman, and certainly not Trayvon Martin.
If someone had had a massive attack of common sense somewhere along the line, the worst that would have happened was that
Al Sharpton would have had to spend a few weeks at home with nothing to do.

This one will go down as a blot in America's permanent record.
Zimmerman's acquitted.
Is it legal? Yes.
is it right?

Good question. Indeterminate answer.


EDITED TO ADD:
Please note -- the jury found Zimmerman 'not guilty'. They did NOT find him 'innocent'. Biiiiiiiiiiiiiig difference...

cid wrote:EDITED TO ADD:
Please note -- the jury found Zimmerman 'not guilty'. They did NOT find him 'innocent'. Biiiiiiiiiiiiiig difference...

Juries always only determine guilt; never innocence.

From what I've read, which is not all that much, I'd have voted to acquit as well.

this is another moment brought to you by media

what is true ,,, what is not is negotiable

At the end of the day there are only two people who know exactly what happened the night Trayvon Martin died. George Zimmerman's account of what happened is the only one we have. So the jury is stuck with this:

Did Zimmerman go out that night with the intent to kill? Intent is IMO the key. It was almost impossible for the prosecution to prove that Zimmerman's intent that day was to kill someone, let alone any specific person, such as Trayvon Martin. Both the 2nd degree and the Manslaughter charge required that Zimmerman have the intent to kill. His intent
was to prevent criminal activity. Calling 911 to report Martin was proof of that intent. A good summation of the manslaughter statues in Florida.

The only thing left to hang a manslaughter charge on is negligence. Was Zimmerman negligent? to be negligent he would have had to failed to perform a duty or act that would have prevented Martin's death. Was getting out of his truck stupid? Probably. But it wasn't enough to prove intent to kill. You can claim that Zimmerman was responsible for what happened because he got out of the truck against law enforcement's advice. Unfortunately, that's probably not enough to hang a manslaughter charge on.

But, if there was the possibility that he was merely defending himself then he cannot be guilty of negligence. And we circle back to the inescapable fact that only two people know exactly what happened that night and we are left with only George Zimmerman's testimony that he was defending himself.

Yup. He gets off while this poor woman is behind bars for twenty years for firing warning shots against her abusive husband. They put her in jail for attempted murder.

So I guess I can go around now with a gun and push people around in my attempt to make the streets safer and when they get pissed off with the harassment I can shoot them because I'm a whiney little shit that has only a gun to make me into a man.
That's what I take from this case and so will many others.

Unless you're black.
Florida. The Racist State.

SciFi Chick wrote:Yup. He gets off while this poor woman is behind bars for twenty years for firing warning shots against her abusive husband. They put her in jail for attempted murder.

Unfortunately, there is a little more to the story.

She left the home, retrieved her gun, and then went back into the home. She then fired a "warning shot" at her husband. The judge was willing to give her a break with the lesser plea deal. But, when she rejected that she became subject to Florida's mandatory sentencing law. The one that says if you use a gun while committing a felony it's an automatic 10 years. And if you FIRE the gun while committing that same felony its an automatic 10 more years. Sadly, her claim that it was self defense was not believable because she left the house to get the gun. She could just as easily have driven away and been perfectly safe. The jury convicted her of attempted murder which is a felony. I also don't think it helped her case that she was convicted of a domestic battery charge against the husband which she committed 4 months after she fired the warning shot.

This is a case of unintended consequences with a law that was intended to punish criminals who use guns but the judge is not given any leeway to consider the circumstances. I should probably stop now and start a separate thread about gun control.

Fisher, I love how you not only shrug off the huge problems with that sentence, but also attempt to shift the blame to the anti-gun crowd. Real smooth, that.

Tell me: if it's purely a matter of unintended consequences, why isn't the husband also going off to prison? I mean, assault and battery while there was a restraining order in place? Hello?

Hey Fisher, there's another dumb acquittal out there for you to defend. Feel like playing devil's advocate again?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/0 ... 98225.html

Gullible Jones wrote:Fisher, I love how you not only shrug off the huge problems with that sentence, but also attempt to shift the blame to the anti-gun crowd. Real smooth, that.

Tell me: if it's purely a matter of unintended consequences, why isn't the husband also going off to prison? I mean, assault and battery while there was a restraining order in place? Hello?

If you read the story I posted the husband DID NOT commit assault and battery. Alexander did. The story goes like this:

1. Alexander leaves abusive husband (Gray)
2. She gets restraining order
3. She goes back to home to get personal belongings and the husband is home. At this point she is violating the restraining order by going where he is. Her only real legal recourse at this point is to leave immediately and return with LEO to procure her personal belongings.
4. argument ensues. No mention of physical contact.
5. She leaves the house and goes to her car to get gun.
6. She goes back into the house and fires gun into the wall. She claims it was a warning shot.
7. 4 months later Alexander (Wife) assaults Gray (husband). She pleads no contest to that and is granted time served. I assume that was time spent locked up during her trial for attempted murder.
8. State takes Alexander to court for attempted murder.
9. she is offered a plea deal and rejects it because she doesn't think she is guilty of attempted murder. She says she believed that Gray was going to assault her again. There is no mention in the article or anywhere else that I know of that Gray actually assaulted her after the restraining order was issued.
10. Jury rejects her "self defense" defense and agrees with state that she committed attempted murder. She did fire a gun at Gray. Stand Your Ground was not applicable because she left the situation and then returned with a gun.
11. Automatic sentencing law intended to stop violent criminals who use guns and lock them up for a long time requires that Alexander be sentenced to a minimum of 20 years with no judicial discretion allowed.

I don't "shrug off" the huge problems with this sentence. I address what IMO are causing the huge problems. One is the lack of judicial discretion to mitigate the sentence after considering the circumstances. The other is a law which is IMO an obvious attempt at "gun control" that totally fails.

It would be easy to assume this case is just another example of a battered woman who is black having the book thrown at her because of the racist patriarchy dominated society you believe we live in. But, if you READ the article I linked to it had an example of a white male who fired at a daughters boyfriend in an attempt to scare him off. He was sentenced to 20 years just the same as Alexander was. So, how does that fit into your racist patriarchal meme?

Gullible Jones wrote:Hey Fisher, there's another dumb acquittal out there for you to defend. Feel like playing devil's advocate again?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/0 ... 98225.html

GJ - stop trying to bait me into an argument. I might have to shoot you and kill you. Because it's obvious from the articles we are reading that if you shoot at someone and they live you are going to jail.

Gullible Jones wrote:Hey Fisher, there's another dumb acquittal out there for you to defend. Feel like playing devil's advocate again?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/0 ... 98225.html

OTOH if you are serious read the article. The law of unintended consequences is an obvious inference here. The man was "recovering property (i.e. $150 the woman stole from him) that was taken at night (doh!) and has the right to use deadly force to recover said property. Texas is one of the few states where defense of property is a valid reason to use deadly force.

And I am probably not the right guy to ask about this. I don't totally agree with the situation and the outcome. But, OTOH I am not going to have much sympathy for a prostitute who took the money and then refused to deliver the goods. That's called fraud. It's dishonest and it's all too often how prostitutes make a quick buck. They rip off people who can't complain to the police because they would have to admit that they were breaking the law by trying to hire a prostitute in the first place. I have seen this time and time again over the years with drugs, prostitution, and in just about any other situation where the reliance on personal integrity and/or honor from dishonorable people is a very shaky basis to conduct any type of transaction whether it is monetary or emotional.

I don't believe she "deserved to die". I don't even believe she deserved to get beat up for it (well, not much anyway). I do believe she engaged in risky behavior and that behavior had an outcome that was unfortunate but almost predictable.

If the people of Texas are ok with this law then they should accept that sometimes the recovery of property will involve transactions that are questionable in nature.

texas

bubbas with guns...

any questions?

code monkey wrote:i'm sure that i speak for all of my fellow citizens when i thank you for not setting our country on fire.

My pleasure! Least I could do! I probably shouldn't have said it in the first place, since I realize the vast majority of people aren't going around saying that black kids shouldn't go out at night and what was Martin expecting? But boy - I sure was pissed off. And I still kind of want to do this.

emily bazelon's essay in slate http://www.slate.com discusses the implications of the relevant florida laws.

Yes. Yes, that. That is exactly why Florida's criminal laws are fucked beyond measure. Look at this: "To convict Zimmerman of murder, the six women of the jury had to find that he killed Martin out of ill will, hatred, or spite, or with a depraved mind."

Broken. Broken, broken, broken. Here murder is when you intend to cause the death of someone or you intend to cause harm to someone which you know has a significant risk of death. It's first degree if you plan the murder and carry it out; it's second degree if it isn't first degree. These definitions are extremely similar to the situation in most US states, the UK... etc. So what is this nonsense about requiring ill will/spite/whatever for it to be murder? Homicide is murder if you intended to kill or very seriously harm someone. Period.

As for self-defence, that's even more fucked up in Florida. In the rational world, Zimmerman's situation is not one in which the reasonable person would feel that there is a risk of death. In a rational world, therefore, Zimmerman could not make out the defence, and would be convicted of second degree murder (or perhaps even first, though I think that unlikely) since the definition of murder is, surprise, rational in the rational world. Florida, though? Stupid laws result in stupid outcomes.

Under Florida law, given the facts of the case, Zimmerman was not guilty. Under a rational set of laws - say, New York's or Canada's - given the same facts, Zimmerman was guilty as all hell. Of murder, no less.

Florida's laws are unjust. They need to be changed. They're absolutely shameful.

as for mr. zimmerman, as a friend said, may he receive all that he has given.

To a certain extent, I agree - I just don't want him to live in fear that if he steps outside, he'll be killed for no reason. Nobody deserves to live in a society where that's a serious fear. Not even the people who make that society a reality.

cid wrote:Please note -- the jury found Zimmerman 'not guilty'. They did NOT find him 'innocent'. Biiiiiiiiiiiiiig difference...

As geonuc said, that's not true. In common law systems, there is no "innocent" verdict; there is only "guilty" and "not guilty." The only legal system that I know of with an "innocent" verdict is Scotland's civil law system... though they still call it "not guilty" since their other two verdicts are "proven" and "not proven," which are essentially the same as "guilty" and "not guilty" in common law systems.

geonuc wrote:From what I've read, which is not all that much, I'd have voted to acquit as well.

So would I. Given Florida law, I'd have no choice. No law was broken. Which is not to say that I think Zimmerman did no wrong; I'd only have voted to acquit because Florida law required me to. That law is broken and unjust as all get-out. If Florida law were not wrong, wrong, wrong, I would have been able to vote to convict.

I wonder... there is such a thing as jury nullification to get an accused off of a crime to avoid application of an unjust law. Is there (or could there be) a jury action to convict an accused to avoid the application of an unjust law (i.e. a law that allows acquittal in the face of wrongful action)? Almost certainly not without destroying the basis of the criminal justice system... but I'm tempted to think about it.

SciFiFisher wrote:Did Zimmerman go out that night with the intent to kill? Intent is IMO the key. It was almost impossible for the prosecution to prove that Zimmerman's intent that day was to kill someone, let alone any specific person, such as Trayvon Martin. Both the 2nd degree and the Manslaughter charge required that Zimmerman have the intent to kill. His intent
was to prevent criminal activity. Calling 911 to report Martin was proof of that intent. A good summation of the manslaughter statues in Florida.

If that's how Florida law works, that is why Florida law is broken. The intent should only apply to the instant he decided to pull the trigger: did he intend to kill or to seriously harm Martin when he did that? And, if so, would a reasonable person have thought that he or she was at risk of death or serious harm? Those are the only two relevant questions in a place with rational murder laws. That these questions are not relevant in Florida, and that other questions are relevant there, tells me that Florida's laws are wrong. Both in the sense of being incorrect and in the sense of being immoral.

cid wrote:The biggest problem that I see in all this is (even if none of it is a crime) who started all of this?

Yeah, Zimmerman could only be tried for criminal actions. If, however, he could be tried for blatant stupidity, he'd be locked up right now.
Granted, Trayvon Martin might be doing 90 days on the same charge, but he'd be alive (hopefully).
There are no winners in this urinary Olympiad...not the state of Florida, not George Zimmerman, and certainly not Trayvon Martin.
If someone had had a massive attack of common sense somewhere along the line, the worst that would have happened was that
Al Sharpton would have had to spend a few weeks at home with nothing to do.

This one will go down as a blot in America's permanent record.
Zimmerman's acquitted.
Is it legal? Yes.
is it right?

Good question. Indeterminate answer.


EDITED TO ADD:
Please note -- the jury found Zimmerman 'not guilty'. They did NOT find him 'innocent'. Biiiiiiiiiiiiiig difference...

Good summation Counselor CiD; that is just about my feeling on the whole thing, with the added little bit that I really don't all that much one way or the other.

The Supreme Canuck wrote:

code monkey wrote:i'm sure that i speak for all of my fellow citizens when i thank you for not setting our country on fire.

My pleasure! Least I could do! I probably shouldn't have said it in the first place, since I realize the vast majority of people aren't going around saying that black kids shouldn't go out at night and what was Martin expecting? But boy - I sure was pissed off. And I still kind of want to do this.

stand in line, tsc. citizens get priority.

i find myself thinking of the phil ochs song here's to the state of mississippi - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvcNZ-KOEcg

extreme? perhaps. otoh, so's the situation. here we have an undisciplined would-be police officer who disobeys the instructions of the actual police, takes it upon himself to confront a teenager whose suspicious behavior is wearing a hoodie, kills him and waltzes off with no penalty. his justification? he was in fear of his life. for a situation he created. what a message! want to kill someone? load your gun, confront your victim, fire and then claim that you were in fear of your life.

having to bury your child is a parental nightmare that doesn't go away. i won't mind if mr. zimmerman spends the rest of his miserable life looking over his shoulder.

And now the biomass is really about to hit the rotating airfoils...

"But we are a nation of laws, and a jury has spoken." -- President Obama

Uh huh...and if that's the case, why are some of these folk calling for more?

Among others, Harry Reid throws in his taxpayer-paid two cents' worth...

And the Justice Department is chiming in too...

Somewhere along the line, this sh!t has got to come to a screeching halt.
Yes, Mr Zimmerman did some extremely stupid things.
Yes, Mr Martin did some extremely stupid things too.
BUT -- the state of Florida has spoken. Mr Zimmerman was justified in his actions.
Case closed.
Enough already.
There is a difference between illegal actions and 'We didn't get our way".
I can't say I like this outcome completely either. There isn't a good outcome here. There's just the lesser of two evils, so to speak.
But this is beating a dead horse. The camera-time hustlers are gonna go into overdrive on this, but it's not going to change a damned thing.
As unpleasant and distasteful as it may be, we all are just gonna have to learn to live with this one and remember it as the best example of what not to do.

cid wrote:Uh huh...and if that's the case, why are some of these folk calling for more?

Because there's 300 million of you with almost as many opinions, all together in the same pot and (at least theoretically) able to do almost whatever you want. Even if Politicians and the Justice System were 100% straight and free of undue influence, your laws will always be in danger of turning into a hodgepodge mess, the downside of compromise.

The "folks" I was referring to are Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Eric Holder, respectively the President, the senior Senator from Nevada (and a high poobah in the Democrat party), and the US Attorney General.
These are not plain everyday people. These "folks" have major league clout. When they start stirrin' the pot, the big chunks come to the top...

cid wrote:The "folks" I was referring to are Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Eric Holder, respectively the President, the senior Senator from Nevada (and a high poobah in the Democrat party), and the US Attorney General.
These are not plain everyday people. These "folks" have major league clout. When they start stirrin' the pot, the big chunks come to the top...

I think the president, based on what you quoted, is doing the opposite of 'stirrin the pot'. He's calling for calm and respect for the jury's decision.

I think it's awesome that the Department of Justice is going to review this case. As TSC has stated, Florida's laws are broken. I don't want Zimmerman hunted down like a dog. That won't solve anything. But I'd love it if the feds step in and bring some actual justice to this situation.

My favorite part in all this is also according to Florida since he wasn't convicted he's allowed to get his gun back. I'm sure all his neighbors will feel safe knowing he's on the prowl!

Seriously though, can someone who understands the law better than me tell me at what point a state can't just have any law it wants when it comes to crimes? I mean if a state decided all murder is acceptable and will not be tried (I mean they wouldn't, but bear with me) can anyone tell them no you must enforce XYZ?

I mean I was going to originally say "if a state decided it was ok to murder black people" but then realized that's probably against the Civil Rights Act or some such piece of legislation... or at least I hope so.