George Zimmerman's Trial/acquittal/DOJ charges

[Tesseria]

Or, you know. We could move onto a more important issue.

No-one's forcing you to read this topic, sweetie. And if you're quite done trivialising the death of an innocent teenager.....

Yeah, but the media and posters on this topic seem to be devoting all their time towards something happens everyday.

[New Chalcedon]

No-one's forcing you to read this topic, sweetie. And if you're quite done trivialising the death of an innocent teenager.....

Yeah, but the media and posters on this topic seem to be devoting all their time towards something happens everyday.

Because clearly, the common occurrence of a tragedy is a perfect reason to step back and devote no time or attention at all to an effort to understand how and why it happens. Just sit back, because nothing you can do will matter.

Fuck that noise.

[Tesseria]

Yeah, but the media and posters on this topic seem to be devoting all their time towards something happens everyday.

Because clearly, the common occurrence of a tragedy is a perfect reason to step back and devote no time or attention at all to an effort to understand how and why it happens. Just sit back, because nothing you can do will matter.

Fuck that noise.

When there's other issues going on? The situation in the Middle East is getting worst, not better. We spend around 300 million a day. Why not focus some attention on that instead of one person being killed in self defense?

[Saint Jade IV]

And? He followed a child. A grown, adult man. Followed a child.

From the photos you can clearly tell that Trayvon was a child, right?

Wrong. Trayvon was 5'11 which is taller than Zimmerman himself. He was wearing a hood that was concealing his face. He was built like an adult. There is no way that Zimmerman knew Trayvon was a minor.

"Excuse me sir you seem to be in the process of looking into houses to break into, may I see your ID please"

"Oh you turn 18 in a week, never mind you can't do anything wrong! You're a minor and I was in the wrong to even consider your behavior shady!"

At no point, ever, did I say that children can't do anything wrong. However, Trayvon Martin was a child, killed because he confronted someone he absolutely reasonably could have assumed was some kind of predator, since he was being followed in a van, by an adult. As the adult in the situation, regardless of what Zimmerman did or did not know, he is more responsible for what happened than Martin.

[Edlichbury]

Because clearly, the common occurrence of a tragedy is a perfect reason to step back and devote no time or attention at all to an effort to understand how and why it happens. Just sit back, because nothing you can do will matter.

Fuck that noise.

When there's other issues going on? The situation in the Middle East is getting worst, not better. We spend around 300 million a day. Why not focus some attention on that instead of one person being killed in self defense?

You realize that argument is literally used as a textbook example of a logical fallacy, right? NSG, for all of it's oddities, is actually pretty good at hating those.

[Tesseria]

When there's other issues going on? The situation in the Middle East is getting worst, not better. We spend around 300 million a day. Why not focus some attention on that instead of one person being killed in self defense?

You realize that argument is literally used as a textbook example of a logical fallacy, right? NSG, for all of it's oddities, is actually pretty good at hating those.

Thanks for the info.

[Knask]

I don't know if this has been posted, but one of the jurors have given an interview to CNN:

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/16/justice/tale-of-two-trials/index.html

The juror sided with Zimmerman's account, and said Martin "was cutting through the back" of the neighborhood "looking into houses."

"He was stopping and starting," she said. "It was late at night, dark at night, raining. And anybody would think anybody walking down the road, stopping and turning and looking, if that's exactly what happened, is suspicious."

The juror didn't take "cracka" as a racial slur but an indication of "the type of life that they live ... and the environment they're living in."

"A lot of the times she was using phrases I have never heard before," the juror said.

She did not find Jeantel credible, the juror said, but "I felt very sorry for her. ... I think she felt inadequate toward everyone because of her education and communication skills."

"I think George Zimmerman is a man whose heart was in the right place but just got displaced by the vandalism in the neighborhoods, and wanting to catch these people so badly that he went above and beyond what he really should have done," the juror said.

[L Ron Cupboard]

When there's other issues going on? The situation in the Middle East is getting worst, not better. We spend around 300 million a day. Why not focus some attention on that instead of one person being killed in self defense?

Then go and start a thread about it. I imagine if you did and somebody started going on about Zimmerman in it you would regard it as threadjacking. NSG can have lots of threads, not just one big one about what you consider the most important thing to talk about.

[Knask]

Interesting how three people (half the jury) felt Zimmerman was guilty at first vote count.

And how "Stand your ground" had an impact on their verdict.

Listening to her, doesn't really inspire confidence in the procedure.

[Saint Jade IV]

Interesting how three people (half the jury) felt Zimmerman was guilty at first vote count.

And how "Stand your ground" had an impact on their verdict.

Listening to her, doesn't really inspire confidence in the procedure.

One of the reasons I don't care for jury trials.

[AiliailiA]

Interesting how three people (half the jury) felt Zimmerman was guilty at first vote count.

And how "Stand your ground" had an impact on their verdict.

Listening to her, doesn't really inspire confidence in the procedure.

One of the reasons I don't care for jury trials.

If you're the accused, you can opt out. It's your right to be judged by a magistrate instead.

I will support jury trials still, even though this one didn't go the way I would like: I would have liked a lesser charge, unlawful killing or irresponsible use of a firearm, and a verdict of guilty to send a message that Zimmerman, while not a murderer, was not entirely within his rights that night ... and I don't mind even if he never serves a day in prison. I cannot see him as innocent of any wrongdoing, but nor would I want him doing five to ten years for manslaughter. Oh wait, it's Florida. He'd do 30 to life, because he shot someone in the commission of a felony however minor. I never really expected a conviction for murder or manslaughter anyway.

He did something wrong imo. If he expressed any remorse for killing Martin, I would perhaps give him the benefit of the doubt that he was punished by his own conscience, but he never took the stand and his public statements outside the trial show no remorse whatsoever. I don't want reprisals against him. It's just really hard to see him walking away from his court experience, still quite sure he did nothing wrong. The court should be able to reprimand him or more mildly punish him, even if he is not guilty of murder or manslaughter. I rankles, that the jury is only given a choice between excessive punishment and no punishment at all.

As to juries though ... the defence and the prosecution each have 20 objections to prospective jurors, in Florida. This seems excessive, even for a jury of 12. Florida has tilted the balance in favor of the prosecution by allowing juries of 6, presumably to reduce costs (ridiculous really, considering how little of the court costs go to pay jurors for their time). They should reduce the number of disqualifications allowed to prosecution and defence.

Six each, to find a jury of 6 from among (at most) 18 qualified, seems quite sufficient to me. Ideally, jury decisions would be by supermajority (2/3 or 3/4) not unanimity, and neither prosecution nor defense would have anything to do with jury selection.

[AiliailiA]

Interesting how three people (half the jury) felt Zimmerman was guilty at first vote count.

I wouldn't want anyone sentenced by a simple majority of the jury.

Some jurisdictions with 12 person juries allow one dissenter to be over-ruled. That is, 11 for guilty and 1 dissenter, or 10 for guilty with one dissenter if a jury member has withdrawn.

It's not such a good option with 6 person juries. Florida juries can still give a guilty ruling with only 5 members, when the sixth has withdrawn for personal reasons (change in circumstances, eg death in the family or obviously, dying themselves). If they would then allow one dissenter, to still make a guilty ruling, it would be only 2/3 of the original jury making the ruling.

Supermajority rulings are worth considering, but only if it will be the rule for every trial from the start. And only with juries of 12 or more.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

Speaking from a purely legal stand point, there is no way to prove that Martin wasn't banging Zimmerman's head into the pavement.

Well, yes.

I mean, if you were just going along minding your own business, enjoying your Skittles, and some racist vigilante KKK wannabe decided to attack you because you were black and niggers don't belong in this part of town, I suspect you might try to disable your attacker so you could get away too.

I would hope you wouldn't (after all, even in self-defense violence is wrong), but I wouldn't hold it against you if you did.

Seriously, has it occurred to anyone that if anything, it was Mr. Martin who was the one acting in self-defense?

George Zimmerman is hispanic, so I'm pretty sure he won't be joining the KKK anytime soon.

[New Chalcedon]

Speaking from a purely legal stand point, there is no way to prove that Martin wasn't banging Zimmerman's head into the pavement.

Well, yes.

I mean, if you were just going along minding your own business, enjoying your Skittles, and some racist vigilante KKK wannabe decided to attack you because you were black and niggers don't belong in this part of town, I suspect you might try to disable your attacker so you could get away too.

I would hope you wouldn't (after all, even in self-defense violence is wrong), but I wouldn't hold it against you if you did.

Seriously, has it occurred to anyone that if anything, it was Mr. Martin who was the one acting in self-defense?

No. Trayvon Martin was black, therefore a gangsta, therefore the Brave Defender of Upstanding Citizens was perfectly OK to racially profile, stalk and then shoot him despite his being an unarmed teenager.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

Well, yes.

I mean, if you were just going along minding your own business, enjoying your Skittles, and some racist vigilante KKK wannabe decided to attack you because you were black and niggers don't belong in this part of town, I suspect you might try to disable your attacker so you could get away too.

I would hope you wouldn't (after all, even in self-defense violence is wrong), but I wouldn't hold it against you if you did.

Seriously, has it occurred to anyone that if anything, it was Mr. Martin who was the one acting in self-defense?

No. Trayvon Martin was black, therefore a gangsta, therefore the Brave Defender of Upstanding Citizens was perfectly OK to racially profile, stalk and then shoot him despite his being an unarmed teenager.

Absolutely! Those skittles are deadly weapons...much like sidewalks apparently. How dare a black boy wield not only skittles but also a sidewalk?

[TaQud]

What the hell is going on in this guy's mind?

[Vettrera]

No. Trayvon Martin was black, therefore a gangsta, therefore the Brave Defender of Upstanding Citizens was perfectly OK to racially profile, stalk and then shoot him despite his being an unarmed teenager.

Absolutely! Those skittles are deadly weapons...much like sidewalks apparently. How dare a black boy wield not only skittles but also a sidewalk?

The law is perfectly clear that Walking While Black is a felony.
That Trayvon Martin kid tried to flee from the scene of the crime, and that Saint George Zimmerman stopped him before he could get away.

[Vettrera]

What the hell is going on in this guy's mind?

Yeah, that's a far leap.

[Xsyne]

Or he rejects free will.

Not seeing how that's different from the second choice...

Not really the thread, but the concept of free will is scientifically unsupportable given current knowledge. And frankly, that's putting it extremely lightly.

[Blasted Craigs]

Honestly, I hate the fact this man was acquitted....
IMHO, I think Zimmerman wanted to add a notch to his belt, and saw himself a "Hero" that was going to kill a thug that night.

IMHO, if true that means Zimmerman is guilty of premeditated murder. For those that say he was probably responding to a fight, I got news for you. When someone wants a confrontation, they will do everything in their power, to get a confrontation. I've personally worked in a profession where you had to be ready to fight in a life or death situation all the time...

Being ready to fight is fine, and required. But there are those people that want to fight. And they will do everything in their power to start a fight, and will do so not caring about the needless danger they put people in. And it is because they want to prove how bad-ass they are to everyone else. And when I see the details of this case, I am convinced this is the type of person Zimmerman is. A glory hound.

And there was no justice in this case. Seriously, the 911 operator who told Zimmerman he was not to follow the individual was asked if he felt Zimmerman did something wrong, and he said no. So he is saying to ignore what a 911 operator tells you, I guess. It was obvious the Police department did everything possible to ensure Zimmerman got this acquittal.

What will happen now? I think we will see angry old men, shooting innocent young men. And lets not forget, how the media can twist the details to make the killer seem innocent. Case in point...

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-11-27/news/os-teen-shot-dead-loud-music-20121126_1_gun-collector-argument-over-loud-music-michael-dunn
Now, the paper so carefully lets us know, that Jordan was shot twice, but No one else was hurt?

My point in the last sentence is that they carefully avoid saying the teen died in the same sentence as Dunn firing at the teen. And it isn't the paper avoiding convicting Dunn before a trial, to say the also 17 year old teen was killed or died is just saying the teen didn't survive. And the reason this 54 year old man shot and killed this 17 year old teen? Because the music was too loud. Hell, if you can shoot a kid cause they "look suspicious", I guess this is a good reason too, right?

Source for Dunns' Agehttp://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/14996934-another-responsible-gun-owner-charged-with-murder-claims-selfdefense-shote-at-teens-for-playing-loud-music

This is the main reason I hate this acquittal. Now, parents will be afraid every time their kid leaves the house, that they must look suspicious, or hell, be walking in the wrong part of town. Cause you know, that seems to be grounds to kill nowadays. Better tell your kids if someone yells at them, to stop and drop to the ground...wait, if it is a molester trying to kidnap them they should run or fight back.... you know what? Kids are screwed no matter what they do.

Great show of justice Florida.

[Xsyne]

Bullshit, he committed first degree murder.

I can't imagine he premeditated it too hard.

Going by the link to Florida's laws on murder posted awhile back, first-degree murder there does not necessarily require premediation. Killing another person during the commission of certain felonies is also first-degree murder.

[Apocentre]

You are forgetting Beyond a Reasonable doubt. If there is no plausible reason to believe otherwise, due to a preponderance of evidence, Legal Burden of Proof is rested with the prosecution.

And they have proven beyond reasonable doubt that Zimmerman killed Martin. The defendant, however, has the burden of proof for an affirmative defence.

In Florida the defense does not need to prove self-defense.

Read in all cases.
If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find the defendant not guilty.

sauce

[Bottle]

I think the part I'm having trouble with is why George Zimmerman was allowed to have a gun in the first place. I mean, he had "assaulting a police officer" on his record, not to mention having a restraining order taken out against him for domestic abuse. I'm not clear on why society is better off if people with that kind of record can own guns.

[Khadgar]

I think the part I'm having trouble with is why George Zimmerman was allowed to have a gun in the first place. I mean, he had "assaulting a police officer" on his record, not to mention having a restraining order taken out against him for domestic abuse. I'm not clear on why society is better off if people with that kind of record can own guns.

Why do you hate the second amendment?

[Bottle]

I think the part I'm having trouble with is why George Zimmerman was allowed to have a gun in the first place. I mean, he had "assaulting a police officer" on his record, not to mention having a restraining order taken out against him for domestic abuse. I'm not clear on why society is better off if people with that kind of record can own guns.

Why do you hate the second amendment?

Because my interpretation of "well regulated" does not include individuals who assault cops and their wives.