So... Florida and Zimmerman, huh?

[Parrothead]

I'm hearing on the radio this morning, some now want the prosecuter charged for witholding evidence.

Much went wrong with this case, a couple of points from early on, I had forgotten about:

1. Police chief did not want to go ahead with the case, stating there was not enough to go ahead with. He was fired.
2. Prosecuter decided to skip taking the case to a Grand Jury, before going ahead with the prosecution.

In the end, the prosecution failed to make it's case and the jury did their job.

That said, is there room for improvement, yes. Laws could be better written, but in one of the links provided by Fisher, it states (IIRC) that the law was deliberatly written to be taken broadly, in context. Perhaps after this, the people of Florida may elect or demand current politicians write laws that tighten up some definitions.

[FZR1KG]

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.

Not sure what you're arguing here, he would have got off even with that in place.
He stated that he was in fear of his life so he fired the gun in self defense.

I'll play devils advocate here for a bit though.
Lets say that nothing changed except what happened minutes before Zimmerman even saw the victim.
Lets change the event from a man going to buy candy to a man that went to a shop killed the owner and his family of four including two toddlers during a robbery to net $13 in change from the register, threw his gun away so it couldn't be traced and was looking for more money as discovered later in a text message to an accomplice, "killed 5 people for $13, need gun to get more money. See you in ten"

Right now, Zimmerman would be hailed a hero.

Note that nothing that Zimmerman did, or thought had changed. Only the previous events.
IOW, the victim was guilty before the incident vs the victim was innocent before the incident.

Hero in one case, vilified in the another.
Nothing changed but the innocence of the victim for a previous action.

The problem as I see Florida's laws is they didn't factor a person initiating the altercation deliberately knowing that it could go down the path of violence and armed with a firearm, then allowing the aggressor the same possible defense as someone that was attacked.

That's what is FUBR.

Use the same style of rule as robbery. If you rob someone its one type of offense, if you rob them with a firearm, its a different crime.
Confronting a person while armed should be treated on a different scale to confronting someone while unarmed which should be different to being confronted.
It appears in Florida this is not the case.

The aggressor can come at you armed and if a fight breaks out, he gets to stand his ground and shoot you and get off. WTF.

[Sigma_Orionis]

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...

Based on the links you provided, I must agree with geonuc, the HNIC is saying "folks, that's the law the way Florida wants it, so keep it cool." He of course, did mention on his statement that there ought to be something done about Gun-Control Laws (which is not particularly surprising, considering that his last attempt to introduce legislation on gun control fell flat on its face) but in a most general way.

As for AG Holder and Harry Reid, IMHO they're responding to public outcry (and no doubt, try to score a couple of political points since neither of them is particularly well liked). Which was large enough to force the Justice System in Florida to charge Zimmerman.

"The price of Freedom is NOT eternal vigilance, is sorting through the mess"
Me

[FZR1KG]

Forgot to add, if what I've heard is correct and Zimmerman stopped pursuing then the victim came back to confront him it adds another level of complexity to the issue. At that point Zimmerman was the one that was attacked but he was also the one that provoked. Very fucked up case.

[SciFi Chick]

I've read about the whole case now, and I'm pretty certain I would have found him not guilty as well. I really hope he doesn't get killed. Everyone was saying he was racist, but it's pretty clear that Martin was the racist.

This doesn't change my issues with the 'stand your ground' law.

[FZR1KG]

As above.
I'm having a lot of trouble believing that Martin who had only one injury (besides the gun wound), on his ring finger from throwing punches, was yelling for help when Zimmerman was the one beaten.

Floridas laws might be fucked up but I'm thinking they got the right verdict.

[pumpkinpi]

I've read about the whole case now, and I'm pretty certain I would have found him not guilty as well. I really hope he doesn't get killed. Everyone was saying he was racist, but it's pretty clear that Martin was the racist.

This doesn't change my issues with the 'stand your ground' law.

I haven't read much about it. What made you think this? (don't read this in an accusatory/judgmental tone. I'm truly curious because I haven't heard that argument anywhere.)

[SciFi Chick]

I've read about the whole case now, and I'm pretty certain I would have found him not guilty as well. I really hope he doesn't get killed. Everyone was saying he was racist, but it's pretty clear that Martin was the racist.

This doesn't change my issues with the 'stand your ground' law.

I haven't read much about it. What made you think this? (don't read this in an accusatory/judgmental tone. I'm truly curious because I haven't heard that argument anywhere.)

I read up on the case on Wikipedia. I listened to Zimmerman's call to the police. He called because of the way Martin was dressed and his behavior. There had been break ins in the neighborhood, and if Zimmerman had any prejudice, it was against teenagers. The dispatcher asked him what Martin looked like. Was he white, black or hispanic. Zimmerman thought he looked black. As Martin approached the car - and he did approach the car for no apparent reason, Zimmerman recognized he was black.

Meanwhile, Martin was on the phone with a friend of his. And he referred to Zimmerman as a "creepy ass cracker".

The media made a lot of Martin's phone call with his friend, but she committed perjury which leaves me in doubt of her entire testimony.

[Rebis]

From Yahoo:

Donnelly told Reuters that Zimmerman was hurt very deeply by prosecutors' portrayals of him as a racist vigilante who targeted and pursued Martin simply because he was black.

"The person they are talking about is somebody completely different," Donnelly quoted Zimmerman as telling him recently. "Sometimes I have to go look at a mirror. They are talking about a totally different human being. They are talking about a racist. I'm not a racist."

He said Zimmerman was anything but.

"He's been mentoring young black kids for years, he launched a campaign to help a homeless black man who was beaten up by a white kid, and he still just can't believe all the things that have been said about him in the media."

[FZR1KG]

Zimmerman is also part black. Something that's left almost always.

[SciFi Chick]

Zimmerman is also part black. Something that's left almost always.

I thought he was part Hispanic.

[FZR1KG]

Zimmerman is also part black. Something that's left almost always.

I thought he was part Hispanic.

Part Peruvian, part black and part German from what I've read.

[SciFi Chick]

Zimmerman is also part black. Something that's left almost always.

I thought he was part Hispanic.

Part Peruvian, part black and part German from what I've read.

Part Peruvian, part black and part German? Shouldn't that be either part Peruvian, part African and part German or part Hispanic, part black, and part white?

[FZR1KG]

Jeantel further testified that she thought race was an issue because Martin told her he was being followed by a white man. Jeantel stated her belief that the phrase "creepy ass cracker" was neither racial nor offensive. She testified that people in "her culture" call white people crackers, though she couldn't recall if Martin would call white people crackers

Love that.
People in some cultures call black people niggers, but, its not racist nor offensive...riiight.

[FZR1KG]

Zimmerman is also part black. Something that's left almost always.

I thought he was part Hispanic.

Part Peruvian, part black and part German from what I've read.

Part Peruvian, part black and part German? Shouldn't that be either part Peruvian, part African and part German or part Hispanic, part black, and part white?

I'm paraphrasing what the family has issued.
Talk to them about the wording. Not me!

[pumpkinpi]

I do something that I feel is being judgmental every now and then. When I am in a car and pull up to a stop and see certain people on the sidewalk nearby, I lock my car doors.

What kinds of people do I do this for? Homeless people. Groups of kids or young adults who are dressed a certain way that gives me a slightest thought of gang clothes. Sometimes single people--male or female, whom I don't like the way they are dressed. Or the way they look.

Why do I do this? I'm worried that they might come up to my car and try to rob or hijack me.

Rarely does race play into it. It's more a factor of socioeconomic status. If they look like they might need to resort to robbery to get some money, I get a little afraid. That is sometimes associated with race, but not always.

Am I proud of this? No. But it does happen. I act out of concern for my safety.

Why I say this, is just because Zimmerman has extended goodwill to black youths in the past doesn't excuse him from being guilty of an unwarranted bias. He feared for his life because of the appearance and actions of Martin in that situation. If that was how he felt, fine, we can't stop people from thinking that way. You can't stop me from being afraid when my unlocked car is a little too close to a homeless person. What matters is how you act on the bias.

I don't know if that makes any sense...

Anyway, another topic This is something that has been bugging me. In the news Zimmerman has been referred to as a "neighborhood watch volunteer." Was he part of an official, sanctioned program in that specific neighborhood that he signed up for and got trained in? Or was he a self-proclaimed volunteer?

[SciFi Chick]

Anyway, another topic This is something that has been bugging me. In the news Zimmerman has been referred to as a "neighborhood watch volunteer." Was he part of an official, sanctioned program in that specific neighborhood that he signed up for and got trained in? Or was he a self-proclaimed volunteer?

He was part of an official sanctioned program in that specific neighborhood. He was a captain of one of the groups. He was not on duty the night of the incident. He was on his way to the grocery store.

[SciFiFisher]

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.

So, are you okay with violating the constitutional ban against double jeopardy? IMO, essentially all the FED's are doing is playing a game of semantics at this point. "oh, you were acquited for killing that poor black kid. So, we are going to try you for a civil rights violation because we can't try you for murder again".

We didn't get the verdict we wanted so we will keep looking for crimes to charge Mr Zimmerman with until we have completely destroyed his life and/or we get a conviction that we want. WTF?

Yeah, that's the U.S. I want to live in.... NOT!

SFC - I have read the rest of your posts and agree that race was not the likely motivator for Zimmerman. I just wanted to point out that I beleive that all too often the civil rights angle is used as a way to sidestep the double jeopardy clause because people are not happy with a court outcome.

[Rebis]

So, are you okay with violating the constitutional ban against double jeopardy? IMO, essentially all the FED's are doing is playing a game of semantics at this point. "oh, you were acquited for killing that poor black kid. So, we are going to try you for a civil rights violation because we can't try you for murder again".

We didn't get the verdict we wanted so we will keep looking for crimes to charge Mr Zimmerman with until we have completely destroyed his life and/or we get a conviction that we want. WTF?

Yeah, that's the U.S. I want to live in.... NOT!

SFC - I have read the rest of your posts and agree that race was not the likely motivator for Zimmerman. I just wanted to point out that I beleive that all too often the civil rights angle is used as a way to sidestep the double jeopardy clause because people are not happy with a court outcome.

I agree.

[SciFiFisher]

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.

OK, I am not sure that I understand the law better than you. (But I did stay in a Holiday Inn) Having voiced the disclaimer here is how I understand it:

According to the law as written in Florida George Zimmer did not commit murder. He engaged in self defense. A jury and a judge determined that.

So, your question is... Can the Federal government step in and force Florida to change the law? The simple answer is no.

Why not? Because the Federal government is not allowed to interfere in an individual states business unless that business clearly violates federal law. The federal government cannot step in and tell Florida to change it's laws governing self defense or murder unless that law somehow violates federal law. Virtually every country in the world recognizes the right to self defense. It's how it is defined and when it is aplicable that everyone disagrees on.

As I understand it the issue that many are having with the Florida law governing murder is the "intent clause" which essentially says that Zimmerman had to have "malice" to be guilty of murder. The state was not able to prove malice. That left the jury with Aggravated Manslaughter vs Self Defense.

Your example is spot on. So, if Florida had a law that forbids Venezuelan's from living or owning property in Miami it would violate the Civil Rights Act and would be unenforceable.

The challenge is that a lot of people don't really want to beleive that George Zimmerman acted out of self defense. So, the law must be wrong or it must be broken. Hence the belief that the Federal government should do something. Even if it means violating Federal laws against double jeopardy.

While the law isn't perfect the fact is the PROCESS was followed and a legal outcome was obtained. That's what we expect from the laws of this country.

Now, if we discovered that the prosecution deliberately botched the case so they would lose or that evidence was deliberately tampered with so that Zimmerman could not be found guilty we might have a basis to retry Zimmerman. But, I am not sure about that. A real lawyer would have to speak about that.

[SciFi Chick]

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.

So, are you okay with violating the constitutional ban against double jeopardy? IMO, essentially all the FED's are doing is playing a game of semantics at this point. "oh, you were acquited for killing that poor black kid. So, we are going to try you for a civil rights violation because we can't try you for murder again".

We didn't get the verdict we wanted so we will keep looking for crimes to charge Mr Zimmerman with until we have completely destroyed his life and/or we get a conviction that we want. WTF?

Yeah, that's the U.S. I want to live in.... NOT!

SFC - I have read the rest of your posts and agree that race was not the likely motivator for Zimmerman. I just wanted to point out that I beleive that all too often the civil rights angle is used as a way to sidestep the double jeopardy clause because people are not happy with a court outcome.

I agree 100%. I posted that before reading what you wrote about the black woman I mentioned, and then I realized I needed to review both cases which completely turned my viewpoint 180.

[Sigma_Orionis]

Your example is spot on. So, if Florida had a law that forbids Venezuelan's from living or owning property in Miami it would violate the Civil Rights Act and would be unenforceable.

I'm pretty sure that some people in Doral, Florida would love a law like that....and I am not sure if I'd be one of them if I lived there.....

[geonuc]

Without commenting on whether the feds should prosecute Zimmerman for anything, I will point that there is no constitutional ban on two sovereigns prosecuting a person for the same crime. The state - a sovereign - can do it and then the feds - a wholly separate sovereign - can haul his ass in court for the same thing. The state cannot do it twice and the feds cannot either. That's the constitutional protection.

The usual reason the feds don't step in and prosecute someone for the same crime is that there often isn't a federal law that corresponds to the state criminal law. 2nd degree murder, for example. That's why you see federal prosecutions for hate crimes, civil rights violations, racketeering and such.

In the more unusual cases where there is a federal law that criminalizes the same act as does a state law, the feds can prosecute all they want after the state gives it a try. Not unconstitutional. Note also, federal prosecutors sometimes choose not to prosecute if the state has been successful and a sufficiently stiff sentence has been handed own. Waste of taxpayers money.

[Yosh]

As I've said elsewhere, I'm not sure why Zimmerman didn't at least get a manslaughter conviction. Leaving aside the "was he in fear of his life from Martin or not," Zimmerman had no legal or reasonable cause to get out of his damn vehicle.

He owns the "first cause," and it seems reasonable to me he should own everything that comes after it. The Murder 2 charge was a charge of intent. The Manslaughter charge is a...don't know what the legal term is...charge of fact? Zimmerman initiated a series of events that ultimately caused the death of Martin. If he'd stayed in his damn vehicle, no dead young man. That was the pivotal action to all this, and Zimmerman undertook it without being under threat.

The FWIS legal team is free to correct me, it has been amply demonstrated in the past, I know dick about the Law.

[geonuc]

Zimmerman had a legal right to get out of his car. That's an important fact. You may think it was imprudent, but it wasn't illegal.

While the concept of 'owning the first cause' has grounding in law in certain circumstances, that first cause generally has to be an illegal or reckless act. Under Florida law, that isn't the case here.