The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
So [Trayvon Martin] is dead, and George Zimmerman is not going to prison (Links in OP).
mcdermott
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
And as anybody from the other thread knows, I find this all sad, but probably legally appropriate.
I'll just start this off by addressing the lolflorida memes, as I did in the last thread, because it bothers me. Fun part is that nothing relevant to this trial was unique to Florida law.
-Most states have the exact same criteria for deadly self-defense (reasonable blah blah great bodily harm blah blah reasonably blah blah necessary).
-Most states allow the use of deadly force even absent the other party being armed.
-Most states allow the aggressor to use deadly force, under the same circumstances (force so great blah blah great bodily harm blah blah all other options).
-He claimed he couldn't retreat, so "stand your ground" wasn't relevant (and many, many states don't require retreat anyway, and not just crazy ones).
-Most states allow concealed carry.
-Most states put the burden on the prosecution in a self-defense case.
Basically, assuming Zimmerman could manage to get a permit (depends on county), I believe a California court would reach the same verdict, at least if they applied the law properly. As would, more than likely, just about every other state.
(And yes, if you actually read the other thread, you know that's a repost.)
So, here's hoping we don't see any riots or other tomfoolery. Here's hoping nobody harms Zimmerman, because vigilantism isn't suddenly cool when it's against people we don't like. And here's hoping this doesn't inspire anybody else to play batman, but I doubt it, because it doesn't seem like George has had a great year even if he was eventually acquitted. Which is why I'll also start this right off by saying the "zomgperfectcrime" argument is stupid, because criminal trials suck balls and sometimes you get convicted too. I mean sure, maybe you get away with it, maybe you spend a year and a hundred thousand dollars defending yourself in court, maybe you end up doing ten years. So easy!
ALL THAT SAID:
I am saddened by this case. Greatly so. For what it's worth, I find Zimmerman "morally" culpable. I think it's not unlikely that he was criminally guilty, though the evidence was never going to secure a conviction (nor should it have). As things sit, I'd probably find him liable in a civil trial. And I really, truly do not like the guy. That gets lost in here sometimes.
LINKS:
Just a few pieces that I think are worthy of a read before participating in a discussion of this case. Please, if you aren't particularly well versed in the facts (what few there are) as they have evolved over the last year, give these a once-over. Follow some of the further links within the pieces. There are a lot of nuances to this case, and a lot of that gets missed in the understandable emotional rage that has surrounded it.
Note that these are just a couple pieces I came across that I felt provided a fairly neutral and nuanced view of the issue, obviously they aren't meant to be particularly authoritative. Two by Ta-Nehisi Coates, who I like...and one by William Saletan, who I don't particularly.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/07/on-the-killing-of-trayvon-martin-by-george-zimmerman/277773/
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/07/trayvon-martin-and-the-irony-of-american-justice/277782/
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2013/07/trayvon_martin_verdict_racism_hate_crimes_prosecution_and_other_overreactions.html
In fairness, if anybody wants to provide a few additional links that they think add more to the conversation, hit me with a PM and I'd be glad to add them here as well. But personally I feel like the above do a pretty good job capturing some of the source of the outrage, while still looking at the facts in a relatively rational light and at least giving a nod to the rule of law.
Nobody is required to "read up" before participating, obviously, but come in here spouting "strong opinions" and make it obvious that you aren't familiar at all with the facts of the case, and you may be treated as a goose. Which is only fair.
I'll just start this off by addressing the lolflorida memes, as I did in the last thread, because it bothers me. Fun part is that nothing relevant to this trial was unique to Florida law.
-Most states have the exact same criteria for deadly self-defense (reasonable blah blah great bodily harm blah blah reasonably blah blah necessary).
-Most states allow the use of deadly force even absent the other party being armed.
-Most states allow the aggressor to use deadly force, under the same circumstances (force so great blah blah great bodily harm blah blah all other options).
-He claimed he couldn't retreat, so "stand your ground" wasn't relevant (and many, many states don't require retreat anyway, and not just crazy ones).
-Most states allow concealed carry.
-Most states put the burden on the prosecution in a self-defense case.
Basically, assuming Zimmerman could manage to get a permit (depends on county), I believe a California court would reach the same verdict, at least if they applied the law properly. As would, more than likely, just about every other state.
(And yes, if you actually read the other thread, you know that's a repost.)
So, here's hoping we don't see any riots or other tomfoolery. Here's hoping nobody harms Zimmerman, because vigilantism isn't suddenly cool when it's against people we don't like. And here's hoping this doesn't inspire anybody else to play batman, but I doubt it, because it doesn't seem like George has had a great year even if he was eventually acquitted. Which is why I'll also start this right off by saying the "zomgperfectcrime" argument is stupid, because criminal trials suck balls and sometimes you get convicted too. I mean sure, maybe you get away with it, maybe you spend a year and a hundred thousand dollars defending yourself in court, maybe you end up doing ten years. So easy!
ALL THAT SAID:
I am saddened by this case. Greatly so. For what it's worth, I find Zimmerman "morally" culpable. I think it's not unlikely that he was criminally guilty, though the evidence was never going to secure a conviction (nor should it have). As things sit, I'd probably find him liable in a civil trial. And I really, truly do not like the guy. That gets lost in here sometimes.
LINKS:
Just a few pieces that I think are worthy of a read before participating in a discussion of this case. Please, if you aren't particularly well versed in the facts (what few there are) as they have evolved over the last year, give these a once-over. Follow some of the further links within the pieces. There are a lot of nuances to this case, and a lot of that gets missed in the understandable emotional rage that has surrounded it.
Note that these are just a couple pieces I came across that I felt provided a fairly neutral and nuanced view of the issue, obviously they aren't meant to be particularly authoritative. Two by Ta-Nehisi Coates, who I like...and one by William Saletan, who I don't particularly.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/07/on-the-killing-of-trayvon-martin-by-george-zimmerman/277773/
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/07/trayvon-martin-and-the-irony-of-american-justice/277782/
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2013/07/trayvon_martin_verdict_racism_hate_crimes_prosecution_and_other_overreactions.html
In fairness, if anybody wants to provide a few additional links that they think add more to the conversation, hit me with a PM and I'd be glad to add them here as well. But personally I feel like the above do a pretty good job capturing some of the source of the outrage, while still looking at the facts in a relatively rational light and at least giving a nod to the rule of law.
Nobody is required to "read up" before participating, obviously, but come in here spouting "strong opinions" and make it obvious that you aren't familiar at all with the facts of the case, and you may be treated as a goose. Which is only fair.
mcdermott on
+17
Posts
Our justice system is designed to protect the innocent first. Convicting someone of a crime is supposed to be hard without insurmountable evidence.
And in cases like this, a not guilty verdict is logical. Only one person knows with any certainty what happened, and given the likely adrenaline and fight-or-flight state he was in, it's very probable that even his memory of it isn't exact.
So we don't know what happened. So we don't condemn a person.
I'm pretty sure I would have taken more than 16 hours discussing this case. But I don't know because I've never had that experience.
I am not talking about intentionally pushing it or seeking exploits. They should act and prepare so that if they are in a violent situation they will end up on the other end of cases like this. And if they still don't get to walk like Zimmerman just did, I hope they start acting like they are in an apartheid system. If you are white, homicide of a black person is 354 % more likely to be deemed justifiable than if victim is white. The US is playing dangerously.
I'm not commenting on any other part of this thing, because I haven't been following it...
But do you really believe this, man?
I have never been a fan of the reduced burden of proof required for civil cases and that you are forced to testify. I know it is the law but it always seemed to me to be a path for unreasonable "feel good" verdicts to be handed down. It would do well for all involved for this whole thing to disappear.
I agree with the verdict, but the proceedings were a joke and a certain voting bloc taking the opportunity to get very masturbatory about how much they salivate over the idea that someday they'll be the one to gun down Bad Guys (TM) thanks to their beautiful self defense laws and access to firearms was repulsive, but expected.
Ever had your head slammed against concrete?
Based on the facts that we were given, yes I feel like it could have. There was obviously a large gash on the back of his head from hitting concrete, the ballistics proved that the bullet was shot from the ground up into Trayvon meaning that Trayvon was still on top of him, and I know enough about physics to know that getting your head repeatedly bashed against concrete probably isn't going to end well for you. There's no proof Zimmerman got physical with Trayvon first.
You know I understand this argument and I agree with you if everything was fair like that.
But it isn't and the legal system is bias as fuck, so I can't argue what's fair and what isn't when the system you're arguing has shown time and time again how bias it is.
Basically, the problem is only certain people really are "innocent until proven guilty" its quite the opposite for others.
But whatever, its not like this guy being arrested would have changed anything.
If he didn't have a gun, he wouldn't be armed.
We know Zimmerman killed Martin. It was the prosecution's job to provide evidence that proved the reason he killed Martin wasn't self-defense, that he followed Martin with the intent to murder or at least harm him. And they didn't. Not one piece of evidence conclusively contradicted the self-defense defense. Zimmerman, as the neighbourhood watch, following someone at night isn't sufficient evidence of intent to murder or harm.
There's a lot of things I want to do with my life, and one of them is have a family. I say that knowing for an absolute fact that one day I'll have to sit my son down and explain to him that in the eyes of society, he will always be considered guilty until proven suspicious.
The real issue is clearly the fact that Martin simple had to have some skittles. Why couldn't he have just stayed home and not attacked someone.
There's video evidence of a large gash on the back of Zimmerman's head so I think the head-slamming thing probably DID happen.
When you say it like that, you make it sound like Zimmerman was itching for someone to shoot.
Going after 2nd Degree was the big issue in the case. There is plainly not enough to prove intent or malice.
I don't agree that it is as grandiose as that. To me it would be more to the effect of "make sure you don't get in an altercation in an area where no one is around"
having more black americans try to take care of and defend their communities would be a great thing and would actually help a lot. Which is why current black leaders will never do it.
This trial is only superficially about race. It sure as hell wasn't about justice. It was about stirring up the black community into a fevor, because they keeps them a solid and motivated power block for the Democratic party. Al Sharpton and the NAACP have no interest in true equality and an end of racism. If that actually happened, they would have no reason to exist. No money and no power. They encourage the racial divide because of the very opportunities it grants them to exploit. They will never encourage gun ownership and CCLs, simply for the reason that being anti-gun is a democratic platform and weakens their political power.
Hey I'm just going by what the 911 operator told him to do!
Terrible burden to be a juror at this length but I can't imagine taking less time than some inconsequential work projects to decide the fate of another person.
Whew, the more I think about it, the more I'm glad I haven't had to be in that situation yet.
He is an arrogant wannabe-minuteman who whined about how they "always get away with it" and talked about god's will etc. He seems like a low-quality person, and they often have less remorse and self-doubt. Wouldn't surprise me if he is better off a year from now due to donations from rancid white people/organizations and media deals.
I mean, mental state was the issue but Zimmerman was never in any real danger.
I get what you're saying.
But it isn't like America makes it difficult for them to do that.
Can we not have this show up again? The operator testified that they have absolutely no authority.
Before this gets parroted ad nauseum: the ballistics did not 'prove' that Martin was shot while Zimmerman was ling down. The ballistics strongly suggest that Martin was shot at close range, and the opinion of one expert was that the shot was made while Martin was on top of Zimmerman.
Ballistics are not an exact or even an intuitive thing to look at in retrospect, and it's dishonest to say that we can know exactly how a weapon or body was positioned using ballistics evidence alone (mostly because human bodies aren't rigid, and their contents are mostly fluid).
could have ended the same way if Trayvon hadn't tackled him and slammed his head into cement. or stopped beating him during the 40 seconds GZ was screaming.
Like confronting some random teenager on the street with a concealed gun means an automatic escalating charge unless the defense can prove that it was self defense. Whilst the prosecution still has to prove it wasn't self defense to convict on manslaughter/murder. Where as bringing out your gun when you hear someone in your house doesn't invoke the escalation charge because you had reasonable cause to believe that you would need it.
It shouldn't be illegal to be armed, but you should be held accountable if you run charging into situations you aren't prepared for.
It's not authority but it's damn good advice and makes a whole lot of sense.