This George Zimmerman thing

[Calax]

What are your opinions? The guy has been found not-guilty and it's being blown up like it's OJ Simpson being convicted. Personally from the media circus and what little I've seen I'd say that Zimmerman isn't guilty of killing the kid. Ultimately it was just a bad situation that was made worse and worse and ended in a bad way, and there is certainly a pile of evidence that Zimmerman didn't just run up scream "YAR!" and start shooting.

 

I would say that ultimately there should be some punishment for Zimmerman overstepping his bounds. But realistically when your head is getting repeatedly smashed into the concrete, it's kinda hard to thing straight.

 

I will say that it seems like the State's case was predicated upon "He went after this kid because of racial profiling!" without actually proving beyond a reasonable doubt, that this was the case (which is why the jury came back not-guilty. Anyway, Thoughts?

[Raithe]

Part of the fuss seems to be the balance on this. There's another trial just completed where a black woman was sent to jail for a silly number of years for firing a weapon near a guy who was threatening her. So when that's held up as one standard, and then Zimmerman on the other, a guy who from all accounts basically went out, started a fight by verbally harassing a teenager until said kid threw a punch, then when he was losing pulled a gun and shot the kid (who happens to be a black teenager), and he gets away fairly scott free...

 

There's going to be a whole heap of fuss.

[Elerond]

I think that there is something wrong if someone can stalk person and kill that person by shooting after quarrel which was caused by stalking and get out without any punishment by law because shooting can be some legal reason be seen as self defense. 

 

So I think that there are at least some problems how Florida law determine self defense especially if deathly force was used, because it seems to give people, in some circumstances, ability to harass and kill people and get out without any consequences from legal system.

[Hurlshort]

I think the prosecutors handled this terribly by going after 2nd degree murder.  If they had focused in on a manslaughter conviction from the start, I think they would have had more success with a jury.  

 

I haven't followed it that closely, but that seems to be my feeling on the case.  There really is no winners in this case, but making it about race is simply elevating it out of control.

 

That woman who was sentenced to 20 years has to have terrible lawyers too.  She doesn't even have a criminal record!

[Enoch]

I make it a rule to avoid wasting my time paying much attention to the news media's periodic obsessions with particular individual criminal cases, and I'm certainly no expert on criminal law in Florida.  But it's a really tough road for prosecutors to get over a self-defense argument when the only living witness to the act is the suspect being tried.  When you need to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, it's really hard to get enough evidence that the dead guy didn't somehow put the suspect in a position of reasonable fear.  As such, an acquittal is not surprising.

 

This is the kind of result that you get sometimes when you enact idiotic machismo-driven policy like Florida's "stand your ground" law. 

[Zoraptor]

I thought he would be found not guilty as soon as I read through a summary of the Stand Your Ground law (and I couldn't agree more how fundamentally stupid that law is) and it was probably the correct decision from the evidence and what little I saw of the trial. But it's a disturbing situation where someone can follow an innocent, unarmed person and get the benefit of the doubt- effectively- because that person is dead and cannot refute anything said about either them and their conduct, or the situation as a whole.

 

I'm also less than convinced that had Martin wrestled the gun off Zimmerman and shot him that the police would either have taken so long to charge or that the groups that supported Zimmerman would have supported Martin, despite that being at least as much Stand Your Ground (probably more, really) as what actually happened. I also tend to wonder what the result might have been had Zimmerman been carrying and stabbed Martin with a knife, rather than a gun, as much of the political heat about guns specifically would have been removed.

[Guard Dog]

The Stand Your Ground law had no bearing on this particular case. In most states without such a law there is a duty to retreat from a dangerous situation and self defense is only justified if such an action is impossible. In this case Zimmerman pulled a gun only after he was lying on his back being pummeled by Martin. Obviously he could not retreat so that is out the window.

 

My initial opinion on this was that Zimmerman followed Martin and when he did that he assumes at least some responsibility for the outcome. But then after reading more about the case and the trial I changed my mind about that. Zimmerman was walking on a sidewalk in a private community he lived in. He had a confrontation with someone who was trespassing. Asserting that he was responsible means that getting out of you truck and walking on a sidewalk in your own community is in fact a criminal act. It just does not stand up to reason.

 

As tragic as the whole thing was I think the verdict was correct. I don't completely believe his story. I don't think that kid ambushed him. There was a confrontation and words were exchanged and it went bad. I doubt Zimmerman threw the first punch and that kid had a reputation as a hothead. If Zimmerman started the fight then it is murder. You don't get to pull a gun because you were getting your ass kicked in a fight you started. But the truth is there is no way to tell for sure since there were no witnesses to the start of the confrontation and his story was credible. That's why it had to be Not Guilty.

 

Hurlshot was right. The state overreached with 2nd degree murder. But that is racial politics interfering with the justice system for you. 

Edited July 15, 2013 by Guard Dog

[Gorgon]

And of course it would be sacriledge to suggest that the better outcome would have been for Martin not to have had a gun.

[Guard Dog]

And of course it would be sacriledge to suggest that the better outcome would have been for Martin not to have had a gun.

Well, if Zimmerman did not have a gun and it still went down the same way then there is a good chance he would be dead or at least seriously screwed up and Martin would be on trial. Or not. After all he didn't live there and might have run away. Would that have been better?

 

There was an incident this past week in Austin Peay where two teenagers with long criminal records broke into a house where a woman was staying alone. They were armed with crowbars and knives. She was armed with a .38. she shot both of them, killed one and the other fled. How do you think that story would have ended if she had been unarmed?

Edited July 15, 2013 by Guard Dog

[Gorgon]

Define 'a good chance'. 15 year old school kid, not doing anything illegal at the time that we know of.  A melee breaks out for whatever reason. Those things end in death a lot less often than than gunshots. We have Zimmerman's word that he was about to get beaten to death. Rather convenient.

 

This was not a home invasion. What likely happened was that he lost his cool and it ended with a killing because he had a weapon he had to use for fear that it would be wrestled from him. Again, no evidence that Zimmerman was even in the right or who started it.

[Wrath of Dagon]

The evidence all shows Martin came back and attacked Zimmerman, Zimmerman wasn't following him at the time but simply returning to his car (the fight took place almost next to Zimmerman's car, while Martin's house was about a 10 sec run away, while the evidence shows 4 minutes elapsed after Zimmerman got out of his car and Martin started running towards his house before the fight took place). Here's a map and a timeline of events http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-linehan/evidence-that-trayvon-martin-doubled-back The same thing was shown at trial for anyone paying attention.

 

It's an open and shut case of self defense, the only reason for controversy are racial politics.

[Volourn]

"He had a confrontation with someone who was trespassing."
 

Except Martin wasn't trespassing. He was there via invite.

 

I do laugh at people making this a white vs black thing since Zimmerman is not white.

 

I'll be honest, I can understand Zimmerman not being found guilty of murder but surely he was guilty of something. To me, manslaughter could have been argued if the prosecuters weren't too busy being idiots and trying to play the political media game.

[Calax]

I'm also less than convinced that had Martin wrestled the gun off Zimmerman and shot him that the police would either have taken so long to charge or that the groups that supported Zimmerman would have supported Martin, despite that being at least as much Stand Your Ground (probably more, really) as what actually happened. I also tend to wonder what the result might have been had Zimmerman been carrying and stabbed Martin with a knife, rather than a gun, as much of the political heat about guns specifically would have been removed.

According to the former chief of Police in the area, the mayor and other higher ups basically forced him to make the arrest so that they could look like they were doing something to the media. His side of things was that when the police were initially involved there wasn't anything to suggest that a crime had technically been comitted. Like I said, they had an issue on both sides and Zimmerman does have some fault for it, but he still was considered in self defense.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I can't say I'm surprised to be honest. Between the "stand your ground" law and lack of a witness other than Zimmerman, I don't see how he could have been convicted if anything.

[Gorth]

So, technically you just have to kill all witnesses and you can claim innocence as the burden of proof is on the dead guys to prove they aren't guilty of anything.

 

As the law is, the verdict is correct. It's still a silly law. Did anything prevent him from just keeping an eye on what he considered a suspect while waiting for law enforcement to arrive?

 

No, haven't read up on all timelines and attempts at reconstructing events. One of the two key witnesses is dead, so we'll always only get one side of the story. The rest we have to extrapolate the best our various bias's and prejudices allows.

[Zoraptor]

You don't get to pull a gun because you were getting your ass kicked in a fight you started. But the truth is there is no way to tell for sure since there were no witnesses to the start of the confrontation and his story was credible. That's why it had to be Not Guilty.

That is why it had to be not guilty, but it is also why it's a deplorable situation. Of the two people who knew the truth one was dead, shot by the other; and that fact was potentially decisive for the defence- though of course Martin might have confirmed Zimmerman's story, for all we know. The prosecution had to show that Zimmerman was not acting in self defence and was lying when the only (surviving) witness was Zimmerman himself, who (sensibly) did not testify so could not be cross examined. That is not a good situation at all as it makes it advantageous to kill the other guy.

 

It's one of the few situations in which I'd be somewhat sympathetic to forcing a defendant to testify- in most places self defence has to be proven, and in that sort of situation Zimmerman would almost certainly testify voluntarily. With the burden of proof provisions differing significantly Zimmerman ends up with both the advantage of not having to testify and not having the other guy involved alive to gainsay him. If Martin stood up and said that Zimmerman jumped out at him so he tackled him, banging his head on the ground then it's two plausible stories of self defence against each other and it reverts to an armed guy getting out of a car to follow a 17 year old incorrectly and without foundation suspected of being a burglar (and who wasn't even trespassing, just staying with relatives) against a police suggestion. At that point, things start looking bad for Zimmerman.

[HoonDing]

The Stand Your Ground law had no bearing on this particular case. In most states without such a law there is a duty to retreat from a dangerous situation and self defense is only justified if such an action is impossible. In this case Zimmerman pulled a gun only after he was lying on his back being pummeled by Martin. Obviously he could not retreat so that is out the window.

Was there an explanation during the trial for why a big man like Zimmerman couldn't overpower a 15/17-year old?

 

[Guard Dog]

"He had a confrontation with someone who was trespassing."

 

Except Martin wasn't trespassing. He was there via invite.

 

 

I thought so too, which changes the situation a little bit. If they both had the right to be there it makes it worse for Zimmerman but during the trial it comes out that Martins father's girlfriend didn't live in that community, she lived in the adjacent one and he was just cutting through. Technically that is trespassing since it was a private and gated community. In the real world that is not a big deal but in the minutia of legal proceedings it is a factor.

[Drowsy Emperor]

Actually the most interesting aspect of this case is how things quickly spiral out of control in the US when race becomes an element. Russia Today is covering plenty of protests all over the US, some of them violent.

[Guard Dog]

So, technically you just have to kill all witnesses and you can claim innocence as the burden of proof is on the dead guys to prove they aren't guilty of anything.

 

As the law is, the verdict is correct. It's still a silly law. Did anything prevent him from just keeping an eye on what he considered a suspect while waiting for law enforcement to arrive?

 

No, haven't read up on all timelines and attempts at reconstructing events. One of the two key witnesses is dead, so we'll always only get one side of the story. The rest we have to extrapolate the best our various bias's and prejudices allows.

Well, it's not just that. The forensics of the crime scene matched the story. But your second point is right on though. If he had done that nothing would have happened that night. However, if he is criminally responsible because he got out and followed Martin that makes walking on the sidewalk of your own community a criminal act.

 

This whole thing just sucks.

[Walsingham]

I make it a rule to avoid wasting my time paying much attention to the news media's periodic obsessions with particular individual criminal cases, and I'm certainly no expert on criminal law in Florida.  But it's a really tough road for prosecutors to get over a self-defense argument when the only living witness to the act is the suspect being tried.  When you need to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, it's really hard to get enough evidence that the dead guy didn't somehow put the suspect in a position of reasonable fear.  As such, an acquittal is not surprising.

 

This is the kind of result that you get sometimes when you enact idiotic machismo-driven policy like Florida's "stand your ground" law. 

 

I just replaced my opinion with this one.

[Amentep]

I think the prosecutors handled this terribly by going after 2nd degree murder.  If they had focused in on a manslaughter conviction from the start, I think they would have had more success with a jury.

My understanding - and I'm not a lawyer (nor do I play one on TV) - of Florida's law was that it would have been near impossible to convict him of murder under the law. 2nd degree murder requires 2 things in Florida (from what I've read) proof of a depraved mind and action that wasn't premeditated. I don't think they could ever have proven the "depraved mind" - ie that Zimmerman knew his actions would lead to murder.

 

There's three manslaughter charges in Florida, the second is about getting someone else to commit an act that leads to death so its out so doesn't apply; the first requires the death to result in the course of action considered to be unjustified and unexcusable (hard to prove, IMO, as Zimmerman's actions were as a result of him being a neighborhood watch captain). The third involves murder as a result of “culpably negligent” conduct, which might have been provable since Zimmerman had been told to not follow Martin by the police dispatcher so it might be possible to prove his negligent actions escalated a situation such that an unlawful killing took place.

[kalimeeri]

I think the jury made the right call--the prosecution was unable to support the murder charge based on the available evidence.  They probably knew from the beginning that this case would be problematic, if not impossible, to prove in court ... a fact which accounts for the delay in bringing charges in the first place.  The police very likely consulted them that very night about the feasibility of bringing those charges (common practice, and what's known as covering your a**), but Prosecutors do not like engaging in cases they know they will lose, because it reflects badly on their track record when it comes to keeping their jobs.  Plus, if proper evidence might be slow in coming, charging Zimmerman immediately would be the wrong thing to do ... because the trial clock starts ticking from that moment.  So if the prosecutor's office turns thumbs down, the police let him walk.  That situation is what they made Grand Juries for.

 

What cracks me up is that from the beginning, Martin was portrayed and referred to as a 'child'.  The photos that were splashed all over were obviously him at an earlier age (12-15 yr old); whereas at the time of this incident, Martin was now a young man of 17, who stood at least a head taller than Zimmerman.  His background indicates he also liked to be a bit of a bully at school, bragging about fistfights he'd had, or intended to have.  (He'd also been known to carry what are commonly (and legally) regarded as 'burglary tools' in his backpack.)  In short, should the situation in this incident have been reversed, in Florida he would very likely have been tried as an adult.

 

As for Zimmerman... where do I start?  As a (self-appointed?) neighborhood watch captain in a gated community, he should never have been carrying a gun.  This is sleepy little Sanford, not Miami.  Police officers are taught various means of defending themselves and subduing suspects; that their gun is always the last resort.  Short, pudgy Zimmerman had none of that going for him.  He had no more legal standing than an average citizen; he was untrained, inexperienced and out of shape; and when he reported a suspicious subject to the police, that should have been the end of it.  Instead he refused to follow their direction, continued to follow and ultimately confronted Martin.

 

I can't help but believe that it was presence of the gun itself that changed the entire dynamic of the scenario.  First, it emboldened Zimmerman into believing he had the power; had he not been carrying, he might have used a little more common sense.  He failed to realize that in a free-for-all, that gun becomes more of a liability than it is a help; i.e., it belongs to whoever is stronger/quicker.  And once Martin realized Zimmerman had it, he wanted it ... badly.  The fight then became a struggle for the gun, and I think either one of the men would have used it.

 

Would Zimmerman be dead if he'd not had the gun?  Possibly.  But I do wonder if he'd have put himself into that position in the first place, had he not been emboldened by its presence.

 

Sadly, the media and political groups have blown the entire case into a racial bias circus, when all it really was, was a fight between two men (who each had something to prove) that went bad.

Edited July 15, 2013 by kalimeeri

[Walsingham]

Interesting angle, kalimeeri. I don't agree, completely. But interesting.

[alanschu]

The juxtaposition of the case where a woman apparently gets 20 years in jail for intentionally firing a warning shot rather than shooting to kill.

 

Kill someone, probably get away fine as per Enoch's post.  Spare their life, get 20 years!  Woo!