None of us have seen the totality of evidence that the jury was privy to, so I will not question their verdict. Plenty of others will do that anyway. The jury system used in both Canada and the US, while not exactly the same (I think our court system is slightly better), is going to lend itself to decisions that mystify, anger, and outrage people. This incident was a clusterfuck from the word "go", and the verdict just continues along that path. The truth of this is that the vast majority of this post could just as easily have been said if the verdict had been "guilty".
Your first response basically killed the thread man.
You basically said in summary
- We don't know everything that the jury knew
- The system we have is imperfect, and is going to produce quirky results
- These are true and the verdict itself is irrelevant.
So, anyone who was to say anything about the actual issue does so with essentially the label of fool. The second I read this, I said to myself "well, this conversation's over". :S
I'm kind of stealing a comment from Bruce Arthur, but there now exists in Florida a template to go out and hunt young black kids and not fear any reprisal from the law.
I'm kind of stealing a comment from Bruce Arthur, but there now exists in Florida a template to go out and hunt young black kids and not fear any reprisal from the law.
I think the problem is Florida laws, particularly the Stand Your Ground law. Anyone could go out and shoot someone dead, and concoct a story that the person was assaulting them and it is very hard to prove otherwise.
Also, do you think Zimmerman is brave enough to confront the guy if he wasn't armed? I don't.
Anyhow, even if he moves Zimmerman will probably be looking over his shoulder for the rest of his life. He will be in a virtual prison anyway.
It is. I didn't follow the trial at all. I have read all kinds of articles since the verdict. I feel like smashing his stupid not guilty face and I'm a white guy from Toronto. I can't imagine what black people in that particular area are feeling. As KW STEVE SAID, he will be living in a prison of sorts constantly on the lookout.
Which begs the question, will this be the last black man shot by Zimmerman?
Your first response basically killed the thread man.
You basically said in summary
- We don't know everything that the jury knew
- The system we have is imperfect, and is going to produce quirky results
- These are true and the verdict itself is irrelevant.
So, anyone who was to say anything about the actual issue does so with essentially the label of fool. The second I read this, I said to myself "well, this conversation's over". :S
Wait Milo ended a thread in one comment? Mark this day in internet history!
Apparently you were both premature . . . I knew it was too good to be true. Kind of like gaining the chip lead by the end of the first level in the Forum game.
I'm kind of stealing a comment from Bruce Arthur, but there now exists in Florida a template to go out and hunt young black kids and not fear any reprisal from the law.
This is the kind of nonsensical reasoning/commentating that leads to riots in the streets, when cases as charged as this one conclude.
Movo was right about Zimmerman, though. He may not be going to jail, but he is never going to be "free" any more.
I like the Scottish court system, at least in terms of it's possible verdict. There are three possible verdicts for any criminal case:
Guilty
Not Guilty
Not Proven
I have not followed the trial, but one of the things I do recall early on was the speculation that prosecutors had over-reached with a charge of second degree murder. I am left to wonder if a "guilty" verdict might have been returned on a lesser charge, like say Manslaughter. OR, if they had the option, the jury might have returned a verdict of "Not Proven" instead.
I'm kind of stealing a comment from Bruce Arthur, but there now exists in Florida a template to go out and hunt young black kids and not fear any reprisal from the law.
I read the same.
The stand your ground law is very scary even to a person like me that is usually prone to dismiss outlier activity as something that doesn't concern me.
And the law comes with one caveat....only to be used if you're not black.
I don't know if these definitions hold true in other states but this is 2nd degree murder and manslaughter in Florida. FYI they did not use the stand your ground provision for the defence, the defence team argued self-defence, and the prosecution could not prove any evidence that did not support the self-defence claim.
The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree
The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification according to the provisions of chapter 776 and in cases in which such killing shall not be excusable homicide or murder, according to the provisions of this chapter, is manslaughter
The stand your ground law is very scary even to a person like me that is usually prone to dismiss outlier activity as something that doesn't concern me.
And the law comes with one caveat....only to be used if you're not black.
All the evidence points to this being a legitimate use of self defense. That is why the jury had very little choice in returning the verdict that they did (although I felt a manslaughter verdict was a possibility).
Indeed, the evidence was such that Mr. Zimmerman should not have even been charged - and only was so due to media and political pressure (they brought in a special prosecutor).
Should individuals legally own and carry firearms? Should they be allowed to perform neighborhood watch duties when the police are incapable of protecting their homes? Those are legitimate questions on which reasonable people may differ.
Was this homicide justifiable on the grounds of self-defense (which is a valid defense in ALL states AND Canada unless I'm mistaken)? Again, that's what all available evidence points to.
All the evidence points to this being a legitimate use of self defense. That is why the jury had very little choice in returning the verdict that they did (although I felt a manslaughter verdict was a possibility).
Indeed, the evidence was such that Mr. Zimmerman should not have even been charged - and only was so due to media and political pressure (they brought in a special prosecutor).
Should individuals legally own and carry firearms? Should they be allowed to perform neighborhood watch duties when the police are incapable of protecting their homes? Those are legitimate questions on which reasonable people may differ.
Was this homicide justifiable on the grounds of self-defense (which is a valid defense in ALL states AND Canada unless I'm mistaken)? Again, that's what all available evidence points to.
oh really? taken from the article mole posted:
A recording of his 911 call shows Zimmerman said he was following Martin and ignored a dispatcher who told him not to approach the teenager.
doesn't sound like to me that zimmerman was in danger and had to defend himself. sounds like he went looking for danger and found it.
doesn't sound like to me that zimmerman was in danger and had to defend himself. sounds like he went looking for danger and found it.
Correct, though the exact words of the dispatcher were "ok, we don't need you to do that" which is what they pretty much have to say to avoid liability.
Your point speaks to the validity of a neighborhood watch system, not the charge for which Mr. Zimmerman was acquitted of. Should private individuals watch or follow the activities of suspicious individuals in their community? Doing so is not illegal, really all you're doing is walking on public property.
What IS illegal is punching someone in the face and then getting on top of them and starting to pound their head off of the sidewalk. All available evidence points to this being the first illegal action that took place in this incident. In which case it was Trayvon Martin who went looking for trouble and, tragically, found it.
I work with Young Offenders in a secure custody/detention centre. I can think of quite a few 17 year old "children" who I would most definitely not want to find myself on the wrong end of a ground-and-pound situation in. And as some of you know I'm not a small guy. Mr. Zimmerman is only 5'8" and described as "physically soft" at the time of the incident.
I can very easily understand how he felt (and indeed probably was) in danger of severe bodily harm or death.
Your point speaks to the validity of a neighborhood watch system, not the charge for which Mr. Zimmerman was acquitted of. Should private individuals watch or follow the activities of suspicious individuals in their community? Doing so is not illegal, really all you're doing is walking on public property.
seriously big mike? i never said it was illegal to follow someone who looks suspicious (see 'black'). however, bringing your gun along and following someone you plan on shooting if/when the situation arises when you've been instructed to leave the person alone does seem to suggest that zimmerman had an agenda and was not just observing. he planned on shooting the black guy if the black guy did anything in which zimmerman disagreed with.
I work with Young Offenders in a secure custody/detention centre. I can think of quite a few 17 year old "children" who I would most definitely not want to find myself on the wrong end of a ground-and-pound situation in. And as some of you know I'm not a small guy. Mr. Zimmerman is only 5'8" and described as "physically soft" at the time of the incident.
I can very easily understand how he felt (and indeed probably was) in danger of severe bodily harm or death.
so you carry a gun with you when you deal with young offenders? you purposely follow these young offenders around late at night in an attempt to protect your neighbourhood and plan on shooting them if they get out of line? majority of my students come from troubled backgrounds, drug addictions, jail time, etc. and i sure as hell wouldn't stereotype the black ones, then follow them around late at night and confront with my gun and then claim my innocence in the situation.
So what? Even if they didn’t mention it by name it was implicit in their self defense um, defense.
Uh no. They waived their right to a pretrial hearing to determine if stand your ground was to be applied in their case. Later during the actual trial they applied to use stand your ground but were denied by the Judge because they did not hold the pretrial hearing so any 'implicit' reference to stand your ground would obviously been objected to by the prosecution and would have led to a mistrial.
seriously big mike? i never said it was illegal to follow someone who looks suspicious (see 'black'). however, bringing your gun along and following someone you plan on shooting if/when the situation arises when you've been instructed to leave the person alone does seem to suggest that zimmerman had an agenda and was not just observing. he planned on shooting the black guy if the black guy did anything in which zimmerman disagreed with.
so you carry a gun with you when you deal with young offenders? you purposely follow these young offenders around late at night in an attempt to protect your neighbourhood and plan on shooting them if they get out of line? majority of my students come from troubled backgrounds, drug addictions, jail time, etc. and i sure as hell wouldn't stereotype the black ones, then follow them around late at night and confront with my gun and then claim my innocence in the situation.
I think what you say was exactly the basis of the prosecution's case. However they had no evidence of any planning. Carrying a gun is not illegal in the US in many states. Florida does have a concealed carry permit, and Zimmerman did possess such a permit.
As moose says, that's what the prosecution wanted to show, but had essentially no evidence to support their position. Unlike the defense, which had all the evidence showing that Mr. Zimmerman's version of the events was in fact what happened.
If someone wants to believe the prosecutions case, then I can't change their mind. If anyone says that the jury should have come to a different decision based on the evidence presented to them? That's only possible if the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" is completely ignored.
seriously big mike? i never said it was illegal to follow someone who looks suspicious (see 'black'). however, bringing your gun along and following someone you plan on shooting if/when the situation arises when you've been instructed to leave the person alone does seem to suggest that zimmerman had an agenda and was not just observing. he planned on shooting the black guy if the black guy did anything in which zimmerman disagreed with.
Except that Zimmerman was NOT "instructed" to do anything. As Big Mike said, the Dispatcher's words were, "We don't need you to do that . . ." That is a far cry from a direct order NOT to pursue. As for Zimmerman's "agenda", are you the new Miss Cleo? Can you read minds?
so you carry a gun with you when you deal with young offenders? you purposely follow these young offenders around late at night in an attempt to protect your neighbourhood and plan on shooting them if they get out of line? majority of my students come from troubled backgrounds, drug addictions, jail time, etc. and i sure as hell wouldn't stereotype the black ones, then follow them around late at night and confront with my gun and then claim my innocence in the situation.
But many people, myself included, have participated in Neighbourhood Watch programs at one point or another. A neighbourhood that looks out for itself generally has fewer reasons to contact Police, as the citizens living there are more attuned to what is going on, and the "bad guys" know it, so they look for softer targets.
As moose says, that's what the prosecution wanted to show, but had essentially no evidence to support their position. Unlike the defense, which had all the evidence showing that Mr. Zimmerman's version of the events was in fact what happened.
I would amend this to say that Mr. Zimmerman's version of events is closer to the truth than the prosecution's. We cannot know if it was 100% accurate.
If someone wants to believe the prosecutions case, then I can't change their mind. If anyone says that the jury should have come to a different decision based on the evidence presented to them? That's only possible if the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" is completely ignored.
See bolded. As stated above, based on the case that was presented, a Not Guilty verdict was almost a certainty. I have read up on a bunch of what transpired, including that the local DA did not want to prosecute the case. You see things like that here sometimes, where charges are withdrawn by the Crown as "there is little likelihood of a conviction". One of the problems with an elected judiciary is that somebody is always willing to try and make a name for themselves in order to further their career. Look at the evidence that is out now about the Prosecutorial misconduct in the withholding of evidence from the Defence . . .
This thing was a clusterfuck from the moment Zimmerman pulled the trigger.
A kid is dead because of an altercation with this guy. This kid is dead because this guy shot him. Does anyone think things would be different if
A: GZ did not have a gun
B: GZ did not - for whatever reasons - decide to follow this kid
Someone is going to say the the kid could have gone and raped someone / stolen something / mugged and murdered, because hey, maybe he was looking suspicious (beyond just pigmentation). Here's a fun video that I think puts some things into perspective, namely (and ironically everyone who plays poker with more than a passing interest), people are fucking terrible at being unbiased, and not seeing only what they want to see sometimes.
This article linked to the woman who's getting 20 years? How are people not furious? Get rid of the legal trickeries around "well this law that law" and look at it in base terms. One man killed a kid claimed self defense and is found believable because there were injuries and witnesses (NOTE I AM NOT CLAIMING THIS IS TRUE / FALSE / IRRELEVANT). One woman who had legal documentation showing that she feared for her safety from this man she didn't even injure, and she's getting 20 years. Once again, just look at that, and tell me how it makes sense (further note, to the fucker who's about to point out a bit about different charges, or different legal defense, I just said to take that out of the equation, and thank you for proving my point that people suck at removing themselves from their own perspectives).
A kid is dead because of an altercation with this guy. True.
This kid is dead because this guy shot him. Technically correct. He is dead because Zimmerman, in the course of defending himself from assault, fatally shot him. At least, that is the conclusion one is forced to accept based on the verdict at trial.
Does anyone think things would be different if
A: GZ did not have a gun. Duh . . . but we might then be talking about a black kid getting "screwed over by the System".
B: GZ did not - for whatever reasons - decide to follow this kid Ditto.
Someone is going to say the the kid could have gone and raped someone / stolen something / mugged and murdered, because hey, maybe he was looking suspicious (beyond just pigmentation). Here's a fun video that I think puts some things into perspective, namely (and ironically everyone who plays poker with more than a passing interest), people are fucking terrible at being unbiased, and not seeing only what they want to see sometimes.
Not going to say that at all, but yes, people are TERRIBLE at getting past their personal biases. Why do you think so many African Americans are so upset? They have biases, too, after all.
This article linked to the woman who's getting 20 years? How are people not furious? Get rid of the legal trickeries around "well this law that law" and look at it in base terms. One man killed a kid claimed self defense and is found believable because there were injuries and witnesses (NOTE I AM NOT CLAIMING THIS IS TRUE / FALSE / IRRELEVANT). One woman who had legal documentation showing that she feared for her safety from this man she didn't even injure, and she's getting 20 years. Once again, just look at that, and tell me how it makes sense (further note, to the fucker who's about to point out a bit about different charges, or different legal defense, I just said to take that out of the equation, and thank you for proving my point that people suck at removing themselves from their own perspectives).
Mark
In the abstract, it is a ludicrous outcome, but the law deals in what can be proven.
Comments
Your first response basically killed the thread man.
You basically said in summary
- We don't know everything that the jury knew
- The system we have is imperfect, and is going to produce quirky results
- These are true and the verdict itself is irrelevant.
So, anyone who was to say anything about the actual issue does so with essentially the label of fool. The second I read this, I said to myself "well, this conversation's over". :S
Mark
Well, isn't that a terrifying thought.....
Mark
Also, do you think Zimmerman is brave enough to confront the guy if he wasn't armed? I don't.
Anyhow, even if he moves Zimmerman will probably be looking over his shoulder for the rest of his life. He will be in a virtual prison anyway.
It is. I didn't follow the trial at all. I have read all kinds of articles since the verdict. I feel like smashing his stupid not guilty face and I'm a white guy from Toronto. I can't imagine what black people in that particular area are feeling. As KW STEVE SAID, he will be living in a prison of sorts constantly on the lookout.
Which begs the question, will this be the last black man shot by Zimmerman?
Apparently you were both premature . . . I knew it was too good to be true. Kind of like gaining the chip lead by the end of the first level in the Forum game.
This is the kind of nonsensical reasoning/commentating that leads to riots in the streets, when cases as charged as this one conclude.
Movo was right about Zimmerman, though. He may not be going to jail, but he is never going to be "free" any more.
I like the Scottish court system, at least in terms of it's possible verdict. There are three possible verdicts for any criminal case:
Guilty
Not Guilty
Not Proven
I have not followed the trial, but one of the things I do recall early on was the speculation that prosecutors had over-reached with a charge of second degree murder. I am left to wonder if a "guilty" verdict might have been returned on a lesser charge, like say Manslaughter. OR, if they had the option, the jury might have returned a verdict of "Not Proven" instead.
I read the same.
The stand your ground law is very scary even to a person like me that is usually prone to dismiss outlier activity as something that doesn't concern me.
And the law comes with one caveat....only to be used if you're not black.
Florida Mom Marissa Alexander To Serve 20 Years for Firing Warning Shot, While George Zimmerman Goes Free
The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree
The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification according to the provisions of chapter 776 and in cases in which such killing shall not be excusable homicide or murder, according to the provisions of this chapter, is manslaughter
Wow.. that's just brutal...
Mark
So what? Even if they didn’t mention it by name it was implicit in their self defense um, defense.
The fact they didn't even need to use that tool would show an even greater divide between applications of Floridian law by race as noted above.
Astounding.
Indeed, the evidence was such that Mr. Zimmerman should not have even been charged - and only was so due to media and political pressure (they brought in a special prosecutor).
Should individuals legally own and carry firearms? Should they be allowed to perform neighborhood watch duties when the police are incapable of protecting their homes? Those are legitimate questions on which reasonable people may differ.
Was this homicide justifiable on the grounds of self-defense (which is a valid defense in ALL states AND Canada unless I'm mistaken)? Again, that's what all available evidence points to.
oh really? taken from the article mole posted:
doesn't sound like to me that zimmerman was in danger and had to defend himself. sounds like he went looking for danger and found it.
Correct, though the exact words of the dispatcher were "ok, we don't need you to do that" which is what they pretty much have to say to avoid liability.
Your point speaks to the validity of a neighborhood watch system, not the charge for which Mr. Zimmerman was acquitted of. Should private individuals watch or follow the activities of suspicious individuals in their community? Doing so is not illegal, really all you're doing is walking on public property.
What IS illegal is punching someone in the face and then getting on top of them and starting to pound their head off of the sidewalk. All available evidence points to this being the first illegal action that took place in this incident. In which case it was Trayvon Martin who went looking for trouble and, tragically, found it.
I can very easily understand how he felt (and indeed probably was) in danger of severe bodily harm or death.
seriously big mike? i never said it was illegal to follow someone who looks suspicious (see 'black'). however, bringing your gun along and following someone you plan on shooting if/when the situation arises when you've been instructed to leave the person alone does seem to suggest that zimmerman had an agenda and was not just observing. he planned on shooting the black guy if the black guy did anything in which zimmerman disagreed with.
so you carry a gun with you when you deal with young offenders? you purposely follow these young offenders around late at night in an attempt to protect your neighbourhood and plan on shooting them if they get out of line? majority of my students come from troubled backgrounds, drug addictions, jail time, etc. and i sure as hell wouldn't stereotype the black ones, then follow them around late at night and confront with my gun and then claim my innocence in the situation.
Uh no. They waived their right to a pretrial hearing to determine if stand your ground was to be applied in their case. Later during the actual trial they applied to use stand your ground but were denied by the Judge because they did not hold the pretrial hearing so any 'implicit' reference to stand your ground would obviously been objected to by the prosecution and would have led to a mistrial.
I think what you say was exactly the basis of the prosecution's case. However they had no evidence of any planning. Carrying a gun is not illegal in the US in many states. Florida does have a concealed carry permit, and Zimmerman did possess such a permit.
Lawful Self-Defense - Weapons - Division of Licensing, FDACS
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.012.html
If someone wants to believe the prosecutions case, then I can't change their mind. If anyone says that the jury should have come to a different decision based on the evidence presented to them? That's only possible if the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" is completely ignored.
But many people, myself included, have participated in Neighbourhood Watch programs at one point or another. A neighbourhood that looks out for itself generally has fewer reasons to contact Police, as the citizens living there are more attuned to what is going on, and the "bad guys" know it, so they look for softer targets.
See bolded. As stated above, based on the case that was presented, a Not Guilty verdict was almost a certainty. I have read up on a bunch of what transpired, including that the local DA did not want to prosecute the case. You see things like that here sometimes, where charges are withdrawn by the Crown as "there is little likelihood of a conviction". One of the problems with an elected judiciary is that somebody is always willing to try and make a name for themselves in order to further their career. Look at the evidence that is out now about the Prosecutorial misconduct in the withholding of evidence from the Defence . . .
This thing was a clusterfuck from the moment Zimmerman pulled the trigger.
A kid is dead because of an altercation with this guy. This kid is dead because this guy shot him. Does anyone think things would be different if
A: GZ did not have a gun
B: GZ did not - for whatever reasons - decide to follow this kid
Someone is going to say the the kid could have gone and raped someone / stolen something / mugged and murdered, because hey, maybe he was looking suspicious (beyond just pigmentation). Here's a fun video that I think puts some things into perspective, namely (and ironically everyone who plays poker with more than a passing interest), people are fucking terrible at being unbiased, and not seeing only what they want to see sometimes.
This article linked to the woman who's getting 20 years? How are people not furious? Get rid of the legal trickeries around "well this law that law" and look at it in base terms. One man killed a kid claimed self defense and is found believable because there were injuries and witnesses (NOTE I AM NOT CLAIMING THIS IS TRUE / FALSE / IRRELEVANT). One woman who had legal documentation showing that she feared for her safety from this man she didn't even injure, and she's getting 20 years. Once again, just look at that, and tell me how it makes sense (further note, to the fucker who's about to point out a bit about different charges, or different legal defense, I just said to take that out of the equation, and thank you for proving my point that people suck at removing themselves from their own perspectives).
Mark
In the abstract, it is a ludicrous outcome, but the law deals in what can be proven.