George Zimmerman's Trial/acquittal/DOJ charges

[Vettrera]

I'm slowly starting to believe that O'Mara is a bigger racist than Zimmerman.

I think O'Mara is just a pompous liar.
And Don West is a dumbass.

[Choronzon]

The shooting is irrelevant, because you're asking why he had a gun in the first place.

I'm asking because it seems to me that his record pretty clearly indicates that letting him own a gun would not be safe for the public. The fact that we now have definitive, unquestionable proof that letting him own a gun was not safe for the public tends to support my feeling that "has a history of physical assault" might be a good reason to deny someone a gun permit.

muh rights. muh freedoms. muh boomsticks.

[Vettrera]

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

I agree anyone convicted of of either of those should be denied their right to bear arms. But alas Zimmerman was not convicted of either. Hitting his wife charges were dropped, and resisting arrest charges were disposed of in a manner that did not result in conviction.

Nonetheless, It is rather alarming that someone with a history of "legal trouble" can get a gun.....the same gun that killed Martin.

[Ashmoria]

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

oh i expect that if you read her rant you will understand exactly what is on her mind.

[Greed and Death]

So the next question, on the every growing list of concerns is should a federal civil rights case be attempted ?
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/20 ... al-charges

I think, at this stage, it kinda looks inevitable.

There are a lot of questions that went unanswered in the trial, not least Zimmerman's inconsistency, and the behaviour of jurors - and even if justice was served, it wasn't really SEEN to be served - and that's a problem for a nation under the rule of law.

I am curious how a civil rights charge and a self defense claim would interact.

[Sibirsky]

I agree anyone convicted of of either of those should be denied their right to bear arms. But alas Zimmerman was not convicted of either. Hitting his wife charges were dropped, and resisting arrest charges were disposed of in a manner that did not result in conviction.

Nonetheless, It is rather alarming that someone with a history of "legal trouble" can get a gun.....the same gun that killed Martin.

What legal trouble?

[Ashmoria]

So the next question, on the every growing list of concerns is should a federal civil rights case be attempted ?
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/20 ... al-charges

they need to proceed very carefully and not get anyone's hopes up. we dont need zimmerman exonerated again. it was painful enough to hear his lawyer say that zimmerman did nothing wrong.

[Greed and Death]

I agree anyone convicted of of either of those should be denied their right to bear arms. But alas Zimmerman was not convicted of either. Hitting his wife charges were dropped, and resisting arrest charges were disposed of in a manner that did not result in conviction.

Nonetheless, It is rather alarming that someone with a history of "legal trouble" can get a gun.....the same gun that killed Martin.

And you know what he gets that gun back, and I bet he carries it around for the rest of his days.

[Geilinor]

indeed, in florida the law lets gangs legally have shootouts on the streets with semi-automatic weapons. as long as nobody can prove who shot first, everybody is just defending themselves.

You know, assuming that can actually happen, it's a pretty good example of why the law is sort of screwed up.

If you're a gang and you fear serious bodily harm or death from the other gang, Florida law could allow you to even attack first. The Stand Your Ground thing doesn't need an actual threat, it just needs a reason to believe that you were in danger.

[Geilinor]

Nonetheless, It is rather alarming that someone with a history of "legal trouble" can get a gun.....the same gun that killed Martin.

And you know what he gets that gun back, and I bet he carries it around for the rest of his days.

We're still allowing him to own a gun?

[Geilinor]

I think, at this stage, it kinda looks inevitable.

There are a lot of questions that went unanswered in the trial, not least Zimmerman's inconsistency, and the behaviour of jurors - and even if justice was served, it wasn't really SEEN to be served - and that's a problem for a nation under the rule of law.

I am curious how a civil rights charge and a self defense claim would interact.

For a civil rights charge, they have to prove that Zimmerman pursued Martin out of racial hatred or anger, not a threat to his life. Presumably if they prove the civil rights violation, it can't be self defense. Florida self defense law is more lenient as well, so the federal government wouldn't buy his claim so much.

[Vettrera]

And you know what he gets that gun back, and I bet he carries it around for the rest of his days.

We're still allowing him to own a gun?

Yeah...all evidence will be returned.

[Sibirsky]

And you know what he gets that gun back, and I bet he carries it around for the rest of his days.

We're still allowing him to own a gun?

Why would he lose rights?

[Vettrera]

So the next question, on the every growing list of concerns is should a federal civil rights case be attempted ?
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/20 ... al-charges

they need to proceed very carefully and not get anyone's hopes up. we dont need zimmerman exonerated again. it was painful enough to hear his lawyer say that zimmerman did nothing wrong.

I agree.
I personally wouldn't pursue any "hate crime" charges.
It was obvious that Martin was somewhat profiled based on race. But Zimmerman didn't shoot him out of cold blood. He shot him out of poor judgement, and cowardice.

[Occupied Deutschland]

You know, assuming that can actually happen, it's a pretty good example of why the law is sort of screwed up.

If you're a gang and you fear serious bodily harm or death from the other gang, Florida law could allow you to even attack first. The Stand Your Ground thing doesn't need an actual threat, it just needs a reason to believe that you were in danger.

Actually, it requires a 'reasonable man' standard for your response, and a threat that is making you feel self-defense is justified.

And frankly that's the way it should be unless you're opposed to self-defense.

[Choronzon]

We're still allowing him to own a gun?

Yeah...all evidence will be returned.

Florida is probably hoping he'll continue to perform a valuable public service and kill black teenagers.

[Choronzon]

they need to proceed very carefully and not get anyone's hopes up. we dont need zimmerman exonerated again. it was painful enough to hear his lawyer say that zimmerman did nothing wrong.

I agree.
I personally wouldn't pursue any "hate crime" charges.
It was obvious that Martin was somewhat profiled based on race. But Zimmerman didn't shoot him out of cold blood. He shot him out of poor judgement, and cowardice.

The problem with the federal government perusing charges is at this point it would basically be "We didn't like the outcome of the trial, so fuck you."

[Dyakovo]

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.

That only proves that the juror believed Zimmerman's version of events...

[Geilinor]

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.

That only proves that the juror believed Zimmerman's version of events...

She believed him completely, and it was full of condescension against black people too.

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."

"I felt very sorry for her. ... I think she felt inadequate toward everyone because of her education and communication skills."

She's acting like they're poor gangsters or something.

[Sibirsky]

Yeah...all evidence will be returned.

Florida is probably hoping he'll continue to perform a valuable public service and kill black teenagers.

Or maybe, it's the fact that he was not convicted of any crime.

Yes, lets disregard rule of law and evidence. Lets just hand out convictions and sentences because the public feels like it.

[Choronzon]

Florida is probably hoping he'll continue to perform a valuable public service and kill black teenagers.

Or maybe, it's the fact that he was not convicted of any crime.

Yes, lets disregard rule of law and evidence. Lets just hand out convictions and sentences because the public feels like it.

Victory is mine.

[Grave_n_idle]

If you're a gang and you fear serious bodily harm or death from the other gang, Florida law could allow you to even attack first. The Stand Your Ground thing doesn't need an actual threat, it just needs a reason to believe that you were in danger.

Actually, it requires a 'reasonable man' standard for your response, and a threat that is making you feel self-defense is justified.

And frankly that's the way it should be unless you're opposed to self-defense.

A ridiculous false dichotomy. The choice isn't 'opposed-to-self-defence' or 'incredibly-vague-justification'.

It's possible we can be a little more sensible with our self-defence situation without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[Grave_n_idle]

I agree.
I personally wouldn't pursue any "hate crime" charges.
It was obvious that Martin was somewhat profiled based on race. But Zimmerman didn't shoot him out of cold blood. He shot him out of poor judgement, and cowardice.

The problem with the federal government perusing charges is at this point it would basically be "We didn't like the outcome of the trial, so fuck you."

Not at all. Federal laws and Florida state laws are different creatures, and there were enough problems with the trial even under Florida's specific laws.

[Grave_n_idle]

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.

That only proves that the juror believed Zimmerman's version of events...

It also shows that she appears to have been less than objective, unfortunately - since the question wasn't whether Zimmerman 'went above and beyond' or he 'had his heart in the right place'. She appears to have allowed her sympathies to colour her judgement - which I'm not saying makes her a bad person (it can be hard to be objective), but it is problematic.

[Sibirsky]

Or maybe, it's the fact that he was not convicted of any crime.

Yes, lets disregard rule of law and evidence. Lets just hand out convictions and sentences because the public feels like it.

Victory is mine.

You haven't shit. You have made no sensible arguments.