George Zimmerman's Trial/acquittal/DOJ charges

[Ashmoria]

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."

sure but thats what they did in the rodney king case and they got convictions on civil rights grounds, and that was before the new hate crimes law.

[Choronzon]

Victory is mine.

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

Yes I have. I said " "

[The UK in Exile]

The fact that the dispatcher said "We don't need you to do that" is wholly irrelevant. That is a standard line that dispatchers always use. If you call 911 if you see a person hanging on the edge of a cliff, and they they tell you that the nearest cruiser is ten minutes away, and you tell them that you're going to try to save the guy, they actually will tell you "We don't need you to do that." They can't give orders, or they could be found liable for any injury to the caller.

Anything else you want me to find for you?

You don't see a certain flaw here, for example, that the statement implies that a tortious
injury is likely if you DO do what they say?

Or to put it another way, if dispatchers can be held liable for Zimmermans actions, shouldn't it also be possible to do the same to Zimmerman?

[Sibirsky]

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

Yes I have. I said " "

Why don't you try an actual argument?

Why should have Zimmerman been convicted (if that is what you believe) and of what?

And why should his gun not be returned to him?

[Ashmoria]

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...

which makes me crazy since zimmerman didnt testify. all they had was his public statements wihtout cross examination.

it seems to me that the prosecution failed because they failed to humanize trayvon martin. the juror on tv was all "george this and george that" and no acknowlegment that martin was a teenager walking home from the store. the defense got to their "white lady afraid of scary black men" impulse and the prosecution failed miserably at the "mother horrified that a teen cant walk home from the store at 7pm" impulse.

[Ponderosa]

The fact that the dispatcher said "We don't need you to do that" is wholly irrelevant. That is a standard line that dispatchers always use. If you call 911 if you see a person hanging on the edge of a cliff, and they they tell you that the nearest cruiser is ten minutes away, and you tell them that you're going to try to save the guy, they actually will tell you "We don't need you to do that." They can't give orders, or they could be found liable for any injury to the caller.

Anything else you want me to find for you?

You don't see a certain flaw here, for example, that the statement implies that a tortious
injury is likely if you DO do what they say?

Or to put it another way, if dispatchers can be held liable for Zimmermans actions, shouldn't it also be possible to do the same to Zimmerman?

It's a standard line. It is not situation dependent. The point is that the fact that they said "We don't need you to do that" is completely meaningless.

[Choronzon]

Yes I have. I said " "

Why don't you try an actual argument?

I am. Your primary argument always seems to be " ". I'm trying to be more like you. I want a silver medal.

Why should have Zimmerman been convicted (if that is what you believe)

Because he profiled, stalked, confronted, and ultimately shot a teenager.

But he was black and only 3/5ths a person so I guess its ok.

and of what?

At the very least manslaughter.

And why should his gun not be returned to him?

Because hes obviously a violent danger to society.




Victory is mine.

[Sibirsky]

Why don't you try an actual argument?

I am. Your primary argument always seems to be " ". I'm trying to be more like you. I want a silver medal.

My primary argument is the because of what I am responding to.

The silver medal was won, when the forum was not full of idiocy.

Why should have Zimmerman been convicted (if that is what you believe)

Because he profiled, stalked, confronted, and ultimately shot a teenager.

Profiling is not illegal. He did not stalk him. He followed him.

Based on the available evidence, he acted in self defense.

But he was black and only 3/5ths a person so I guess its ok.

and of what?

At the very least manslaughter.

So he should not be allowed to defend himself?

And why should his gun not be returned to him?

Because hes obviously a violent danger to society.

He defended himself. There is no obvious danger.

Victory is mine.

[Sibirsky]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01nSGb6waE8

[The UK in Exile]

You don't see a certain flaw here, for example, that the statement implies that a tortious
injury is likely if you DO do what they say?

Or to put it another way, if dispatchers can be held liable for Zimmermans actions, shouldn't it also be possible to do the same to Zimmerman?

It's a standard line. It is not situation dependent. The point is that the fact that they said "We don't need you to do that" is completely meaningless.

It is situation dependent, had zimmerrman said, "Im going to sit on my hands and do nothing", would they have told him not to? Of course not. What you mean is that it is a standard line for all offers to approach a potentially dangerous Situation. Which only underlines the point a dispatcher seeking to avoid liabilty serves as notice to your own potential liability for your actions.

[Alien Space Bats]

What [ASB] said was racist.

No, what I said is true:

• "Trayvon Martin and the stolen youth of black children", Jonathan Capehart, The Washington Post, July 15th, 2012, 10:23 AM:
  
  

  I’ve written about the list of "don'ts" my mother gave me when I was just a year younger than Trayvon.
  
  "Don't run in public." Lest someone think you’re suspicious.
  
  "Don't run while carrying anything in your hands." Lest someone think you stole something.
  
  "Don't talk back to the police." Lest you give them a reason to take you to jail or worse.
  
  Because of assumptions and suspicions, black kids have to be "perfect" in how they dress and how they comport themselves in public. But the Zimmerman acquittal now makes it clear that justice for an innocent black child killed requires proof that he lived his life beyond reproach at all times.
  
  What this means is that black adolescents cannot afford to be normal American teenagers. They cannot experiment with pot. They cannot fight in any way ever, even if it means protecting themselves from a stranger. They cannot take sophomoric pictures with middle fingers, bare chests or in silly gear. They can’t have improper conversations on social media. They can't wear anything society views as menacing. And growing up, they can never ever make bad choices or mistakes — the types that teach life lessons, foster humility and build character.
  
  As we've seen with the Zimmerman defense, any of those things can be used to put black children on trial for their own death. Never mind that they were profiled as "up to no good" or were pursued and confronted by an unidentified stranger. In the eyes of the defense, those children never have the emotions, reactions or fears of children. They are presumed guilty the moment they leave the safe confines of home.

  
  
  
• "Reaction to the George Zimmerman verdict grows", Jansing & Company, MSNBC, July 15th, 2012, 10:00 AM. Start at 5:01, with particular focus on Touré's remarks (beginning at 5:48):
  
  

  I mean, these are messages that black parents have been giving to their sons for decades now. The messages that I got when I was a young man — about the world is looking for you to do something wrong — and what Obama talked about in his first autobiography — making no sudden moves, mollifying all of those around you — will go a long way to help you survive being a black teenager in this country. My parents told me don't run in public if you don't have to; if the police should stop you, you know, you want to be sort of pliant and we will figure it out later; when you're walking in stores, keep your hands out of your pockets. You don't want to give them a reason to be suspicious of you because they are already suspicious of you, because you are walking while black, which apparently is a crime in this country.
  
  So those messages are happening in all sorts of black homes throughout America and have been happening for decades, and it is just a reminder to so many black parents we need to continue to give our sons those messages which is not on to say that Tracy (Martin) and Sybrina (Fulton) didn't give those messages to Trayvon, and I'm not blaming the victim here, but we need to arm our kids with the information they are suspects until proven innocent.

This is just from Monday's news feed. I've been hearing African-American say this about their childhood and the way they race their children ever since Trayvon's shooting became news last year.

But if that doesn't fit within your convenient narrative that there's no racism in America any more — or that all of the racism is on the left — well, that's just too fucking bad.

[Choronzon]

My primary argument is the because of what I am responding to.

You respond to everything with

Hate to break it to you, but you are not the only intelligent person on the forum. Far from it.

The silver medal was won, when the forum was not full of idiocy.

Instead it was filled with your puppets.

Based on the available evidence, he acted in self defense.

So he should not be allowed to defend himself?

Strawman.

He defended himself. There is no obvious danger.

SILVER MEDAL DEBATING!

[Jamzmania]

The reactions by many liberals in America to the acquittal is astonishing. There was no proof whatsoever that Zimmerman ever broke any laws during the exchange, and even if he had there was no way to prove it or it would have been presented during the trial. More and more I just see, "He was a white man (which he wasn't, he's a light-skinned Hispanic) who killed a black teenager so he's guilty and if you acquit him you're a racist."

It should not be a matter of race, the liberal media and celebrities made it a matter of race. Instead, it should be a matter of "did he commit any crimes". This trial wouldn't have even gotten past the local news stations if it wasn't because of race.

[Grave_n_idle]

The reactions by many liberals in America to the acquittal is astonishing. There was no proof whatsoever that Zimmerman ever broke any laws during the exchange, and even if he had there was no way to prove it or it would have been presented during the trial. More and more I just see, "He was a white man (which he wasn't, he's a light-skinned Hispanic) who killed a black teenager so he's guilty and if you acquit him you're a racist."

It should not be a matter of race, the liberal media and celebrities made it a matter of race.

Not really. What it was mainly about was Florida's weird Stand Your Ground laws, but with definite concern about race. But it's painted as being all about race for a variety of reasons, from racism, to political partisanship.

[Alien Space Bats]

There is no positive way to spin, "I have no regrets about the night a series of poor decisions were made that resulted in the death of a 17 year old boy, because it was all in accordance with God's Will and not for me to question." Zimmerman is either a smug asshole or dangerously deluded.

Or you just have no respect for a man's religious beliefs because;
A. You are just an anti-religious bigot;
or
B. You don't want to respect his religious beliefs simply because you believe that he should have been convicted;
or
C. You just don't understand the concept of faith.

Or he rejects free will.

That would fall under dangerously deluded, since it's saying, exactly as he's using it in this context, "I have no personal responsibility for anything, whatever I do, up to and including killing someone, was all part of God's plan, so why should I regret it?"

I'll just put you down for "C." then.

Does faith require that we believe that God inflicts evil on the world, for his own inscrutable ends?

I direct you to The Shack, which was published in 2007. Without address the question of whether the author's implicit theology goes beyond the bounds of what is permissible within orthodox Christian thinking (and therefore crosses the line into heresy), the book offers an alternative to the view that "everything is part of God's plan": In discussing the murder of the protagonist's daughter a few years earlier, "Papa" (a literal translation of Jesus' term for the Father, "Abba") tells him, "I didn't cause your daughter's death. But I'm not above turning it to My purposes."

So we don't have to accept the Calvinist doctrine that we have no free will in order to embrace Christian faith, as much as the Fundamentalist right in America (which does, for the most part, embrace Calvinism) would like to insist that we do so.

So, as a Christian, I don't have to believe that God made George Zimmerman kill Trayvon Martin as part of His plan (which conveniently absolves Zimmerman of any real responsibility, BTW); rather, I can simply accept that God permitted George Zimmerman to kill Trayvon Martin of his own free will, and is now using that death for his own ends (namely, to facilitate a conversation about why we automatically judge young black men guilty of crimes they have not committed merely on the basis of such superficial attributes as the color of their skin or their manner of dress, and how in doing so we deprive them of a chance to live as full and free members of our society, as well as robbing children of their fathers, parents of their sons, wives of their husbands, etc.).

[Greed and Death]

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?

He was not convicted of a felony.

[Choronzon]

He was a white man (which he wasn't, he's a light-skinned Hispanic)

So...white.

Or are you one of those silly people who thinks Hispanic is a race?

It should not be a matter of race, the liberal media and celebrities made it a matter of race. Instead, it should be a matter of "did he commit any crimes". This trial wouldn't have even gotten past the local news stations if it wasn't because of race.

It was a matter of race from the beginning. Conservatives, the gun lobby, and Zimmerman's fan club (but now I am being redundant) tried their hardest to hide that fact, but we were not deceived.

[Greed and Death]

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.

Washington post has an article.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... story.html

They’d have to show not only that the attack was unjustified, but that Mr. Zimmerman attacked Mr. Martin because of his race and because he was using a public facility, the street.

So must show attack unjustified
Attack happened because of his race ( animus)
Attack happened because martin was using a public facility.

[Spirit of Hope]

The reactions by many liberals in America to the acquittal is astonishing. There was no proof whatsoever that Zimmerman ever broke any laws during the exchange, and even if he had there was no way to prove it or it would have been presented during the trial. More and more I just see, "He was a white man (which he wasn't, he's a light-skinned Hispanic) who killed a black teenager so he's guilty and if you acquit him you're a racist."

It should not be a matter of race, the liberal media and celebrities made it a matter of race.

Not really. What it was mainly about was Florida's weird Stand Your Ground laws, but with definite concern about race. But it's painted as being all about race for a variety of reasons, from racism, to political partisanship.

Except Stand Your Ground didn't mater in this case, that was a media invention to. Zimmerman was on the ground, underneath Trayvon Martin when he employed deadly force he couldn't retreat. Which means Stand Your Ground didn't apply, and thus doesn't need to be discussed in this situation.

[Choronzon]

Except Stand Your Ground didn't mater in this case, that was a media invention to.

Liar.

[Jamzmania]

He was a white man (which he wasn't, he's a light-skinned Hispanic)

So...white.

Or are you one of those silly people who thinks Hispanic is a race?

It should not be a matter of race, the liberal media and celebrities made it a matter of race. Instead, it should be a matter of "did he commit any crimes". This trial wouldn't have even gotten past the local news stations if it wasn't because of race.

It was a matter of race from the beginning. Conservatives, the gun lobby, and Zimmerman's fan club (but now I am being redundant) tried their hardest to hide that fact, but we were not deceived.

Hispanic is considered a different race by... well, almost everyone. I've never heard of a Hispanic person saying they're white.

There were a string of break-ins which were (to my understanding) committed by young black men in the neighborhood. Zimmerman was fed up with the break-ins and was part of the neighborhood watch. Zimmerman sees a young black man wearing a hoodie walking down the street at night carrying something. This was the only instance where race was involved on Zimmerman's part, race had no part in the rest of it.

Liberals would like to make Zimmerman out as a racist who gunned down Trayvon for no other reason than because he was black. This is the narrative that has been repeated and is being repeated. Again, it would have never gotten past the news stations if Zimmerman was black.

[Central Kadigan]

Let me see if I’ve got this straight – I’m now allowed to stalk someone who has done nothing wrong down a dark sidewalk, shove them from behind, and when the turn around to see what the hell is going on, I’m allowed to put two in their chest because “I felt threatened”? It’s no wonder that this country is ranked at the bottom of every category that matters.

If you don’t think that this trial was about race, then you are an idiot. All you have to do is switch their places. Imagine a 5’7” 185-lb black man standing over the body of a young 5’11” 158-lb white boy. Do you really think that the cops would let the black man just walk away, while they tested the white boy’s dead body for drugs? Do you think that the rightwing media would be holding the black man up as a paradigm of the ‘concerned citizen’ while trudging through the life of the white boy for any instance of wrongdoing? Do you really think that the black man’s story of chasing the white kid down the dark sidewalk and then shooting him in the chest from less-than 18 inches away in self-defense would be believed?

[Sibirsky]

My primary argument is the because of what I am responding to.

You respond to everything with

No, just idiocy.

Hate to break it to you, but you are not the only intelligent person on the forum. Far from it.

Certainly you can link to a claim I made, that I was.

The silver medal was won, when the forum was not full of idiocy.

Instead it was filled with your puppets.

I have 1 puppet, and I have never voted for myself in any of the award threads.

Based on the available evidence, he acted in self defense.

Try an actual argument.

So he should not be allowed to defend himself?

Strawman.

[Auralia]

I believe that the jury was right to acquit Zimmerman.

This is not to say that I believe that Zimmerman was innocent. He chose to keep following Martin in defiance of a 911 dispatcher; had Zimmerman followed the dispatcher's instructions, the shooting would not have occurred. But following someone is not a crime.

Under Florida law (and the laws of 48 other US states and Canada), once the defense makes a claim of self-defense with respect to a homicide charge, the prosecution must disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. It is not clear who made the initial provocation, but it is certainly plausible that Martin attacked Zimmerman and Zimmerman fired his gun in self-defense. Therefore, the jury had no choice but to acquit.

[Choronzon]

Hispanic is considered a different race by... well, almost everyone.

Stop lying.

I've never heard of a Hispanic person saying they're white.

Thats odd, considering the idea of Hispanic being its own race is a phenomenon distinct to the US.

Again, it would have never gotten past the news stations if Zimmerman was black.

....you mean a black person killing a black teenager wouldn't be about race, but a white person killing a black teenager might be?

Holy fucking shit, you're a genius aren't you?