Zimmerman Found Not Guilty

[Mitch Weaver]

Not sure why everyone is so upset with the Stand Your Ground Law. It was not applicable in this case and it disproportionately BENEFITS black suspects more than white suspects in Florida.

[Cheshire Cat]

Original Jury Count:  Five of the six believed Zimmerman was guilty.

And now the other jury members are distancing themselves from the woman who spoke on Anderson Cooper.

By the way, her attorney husband had already signed a book deal for her about her experiences on the trial.

http://news.yahoo.com/zimmerman-jury-initially-split-3-2-1-verdict-005342718.html

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The jury in George Zimmerman's trial initially had three votes for not guilty, two votes for manslaughter and one vote for second-degree murder when deliberations began, juror B-37 told CNN on Monday.

The jury later reached a unanimous verdict of not guilty.

"There was a couple of them in there that wanted to find him guilty of something. And after hours and hours and hours of deliberating over the law, and reading it over and over and over again, we just decided there's no other way or place to go," she told CNN.

Original count had three not guilty's, two for manslaughter and one for murder 2.  The book deal was pulled according to reporting by CNN.  Four other jurors made the statement that the juror on Anderson Coopers CNN show did not speak for them just herself.

[NotNow]

Lake,

I would ask you the same question...how, exactly, would you rewrite the law?

I'd probably start here. 

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

These are the statutes that I believe apply to civilians.  To see all of Chapter 776:

http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2012/Chapter776

OK, it looks like the most applicable to this case.  Would you simply erase this exception or word it differently?

[thelakelander]

Not sure why everyone is so upset with the Stand Your Ground Law. It was not applicable in this case and it disproportionately BENEFITS black suspects more than white suspects in Florida.

It's not about black vs white suspects.  This type of thinking helps fan divide and flames as well.  The major issue is the state law allowing the aggressor to pursue and kill the victim and then go home without any punishment. Race is then dumped into it when you start looking at our history and a ton of public policies that have been based upon skin color.  It then goes haywire when all the self interest groups and media on both sides jump into the mix.

[Cheshire Cat]

Not sure about being aware of other "vigilantes" in the community profiling Blacks comment Ennis.   This is a racially mixed community with Blacks in residence.  Unless you have proof of their being "vigilantes" in that community perhaps that descriptive is unfair.

Maybe, but what else do you call an over zealous neighborhood watch person who keeps going after someone they've personally profiled despite being told not too?  Nevertheless, by the same token, there's no proof that the victim (who was not a permanent resident) knew black youth were being profiled by people like GZ.  All the documented evidence suggests the victim thought GZ was a creepy guy following him to do bodily harm.

Btw, how did GZ get the position of neighborhood watch guy?  Was he elected or appointed by some home owner's association or did a few guys in the area take this task upon themselves?

During and after the trial several month's of reports detailing criminal activity in the community were presented into evidence.  In one case, a woman from that community testified to the case which directly impacted her, which had to do with two teenage Black kids who broke into her home while she was in it.  One of the teens was caught and charge and as it turned out he lived in the self same neighborhood.  It also turns out that the other crimes also had young Blacks as the perp and this is a matter of record.  In that light, I don't think we can truly claim there were
vigilante attitudes at work here and Zimmerman was feeding into them.  I think many in the neighborhood were on alert to suspicious behavior, especially after the break in with the woman and child home alone.  As it turns out the police got there in time and grabbed the offender.

This doesn't suggest that the victim knew anything about this.  All he had was a weird guy, he did not know, following him on a dark rainy and cold night in a little country town he wasn't as familiar with.

The victim would have known nothing of this.  My question was geared toward the statement that there were other vigilantes profiling Blacks.  There is no proof of that.  That's what I am saying.  I think if we are to get through this conversation and keep our heads on straight, we need to speak to the situation as factually as we can and this case is really short of facts. 

[thelakelander]

Lake,

I would ask you the same question...how, exactly, would you rewrite the law?

I'd probably start here. 

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

These are the statutes that I believe apply to civilians.  To see all of Chapter 776:

http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2012/Chapter776

OK, it looks like the most applicable to this case.  Would you simply erase this exception or word it differently?

I'd leave this up to those more well versed in law but I'd probably erase this exception.  However, before that can be done, this would have to be properly reviewed in context with other laws on the books.  Just isolating and erasing it would be cherry picking and could have negative impacts elsewhere.

[thelakelander]

Not sure about being aware of other "vigilantes" in the community profiling Blacks comment Ennis.   This is a racially mixed community with Blacks in residence.  Unless you have proof of their being "vigilantes" in that community perhaps that descriptive is unfair.

Maybe, but what else do you call an over zealous neighborhood watch person who keeps going after someone they've personally profiled despite being told not too?  Nevertheless, by the same token, there's no proof that the victim (who was not a permanent resident) knew black youth were being profiled by people like GZ.  All the documented evidence suggests the victim thought GZ was a creepy guy following him to do bodily harm.

Btw, how did GZ get the position of neighborhood watch guy?  Was he elected or appointed by some home owner's association or did a few guys in the area take this task upon themselves?

During and after the trial several month's of reports detailing criminal activity in the community were presented into evidence.  In one case, a woman from that community testified to the case which directly impacted her, which had to do with two teenage Black kids who broke into her home while she was in it.  One of the teens was caught and charge and as it turned out he lived in the self same neighborhood.  It also turns out that the other crimes also had young Blacks as the perp and this is a matter of record.  In that light, I don't think we can truly claim there were
vigilante attitudes at work here and Zimmerman was feeding into them.  I think many in the neighborhood were on alert to suspicious behavior, especially after the break in with the woman and child home alone.  As it turns out the police got there in time and grabbed the offender.

This doesn't suggest that the victim knew anything about this.  All he had was a weird guy, he did not know, following him on a dark rainy and cold night in a little country town he wasn't as familiar with.

The victim would have known nothing of this.  My question was geared toward the statement that there were other vigilantes profiling Blacks.  There is not proof of that is what I am saying.  I think if we are to get through this conversation and keep our heads on straight, we need to speak to the situation as factually as we can and this case is really short of facts. 

That's not what I was meaning to imply when I wrote this:

TM was also visiting his dad, who lived in this gated community. I don't know if anyone is aware that he knew neighborhood vigilantes were over zealously profiling black youths in the area. Perhaps if he did, the situation would have ended up differently.  Unfortunately, we'll never know.

Maybe it should have been written like this:

TM was also visiting his dad, who lived in this gated community. I don't know if anyone is aware that he knew a neighborhood vigilante was over zealously profiling black youths in the area. Perhaps if he did, the situation would have ended up differently.  Unfortunately, we'll never know.

[Cheshire Cat]

Boy .... lots of discussion since I've dropped by.  The killing and the verdict is all over the media .... all over the world.

It's good though .... raises issues needing discussion and resolution.

Too bad there is no clear evidence at this point to convict GZ.  Maybe someone, out of the blue, will come forth as a witness, or will come up with a good video of the events ...  with sound ....  so that a jury can convict based on what actually happened.  As we've seen, its difficult to convict based on assumptions or emotional aspects.  And I am so happy for all citizens that murder convictions cannot be based on assumptions, but must rely on facts and on clear evidence.

Even without a conviction, the movers and shakers can now work on needed changes in any laws about guns and stuff.... and maybe about related societal problems.

I still think that the FBC had something to do with this thing.     

More info will come about about the character of everyone involved during the civil trial and the burden of proof will be much different. 

Assuming there is one.

It doesn't make much sense to sue someone that doesn't have money.

I don't quite agree.  It does make sense if one is interested in justice, not money.  But if it is about money, this type of suit means that if Zimmerman is found guilty he can possibly serve time depending upon Florida Law, but if there is a financial finding that would mean that if Zimmerman ever wrote a book or took a movie deal along with a complete variety of money making endeavors, that money would go to the financial judgement i.e. the Martin's.

[Cheshire Cat]

I think what may have helped push him forward is that the officer then asked him twice about where Trayvon was located and for a street name.

If you're neighborhood watch guy, shouldn't you be familiar with your neighborhood?  One would think, someone familiar with their neighborhood would be able to answer those questions immediately and without any type of movement on their part.

Agreed.  But Zimmerman may have seen this as some sort of an indicator to move forward. 

[Cheshire Cat]

I think I said earlier in this thread that this discussion is a necessary one and one that can only be had with civility.  There is a tendency on the part of some to feel as though statements outside of their viewpoint are attacks on their point of view.  I think allowing ourselves to get caught up in a contest of words and dragging up statements made by posters in the past on other issues really does nothing to enhance the discussion but rather derails an important conversation and replaces it with personal tit for tat exchanges.  I think everyone should be allowed the courtesy of their opinion without being called names or supporters of child murder or any other thing that is insulting.  Reasonable people can look at a single situation and have reasonable differences in their views.  Can we please keep this about the issues at hand and not about insults? Can we also agree not to take personal insult from others views but rather to actually listen to what their feelings are?  We don't have to agree with them but I promise you, understanding others views and why they may feel the way they do is key to unlocking the differences among people, including perceptions of race.

[duvalbill]

Boy .... lots of discussion since I've dropped by.  The killing and the verdict is all over the media .... all over the world.

It's good though .... raises issues needing discussion and resolution.

Too bad there is no clear evidence at this point to convict GZ.  Maybe someone, out of the blue, will come forth as a witness, or will come up with a good video of the events ...  with sound ....  so that a jury can convict based on what actually happened.  As we've seen, its difficult to convict based on assumptions or emotional aspects.  And I am so happy for all citizens that murder convictions cannot be based on assumptions, but must rely on facts and on clear evidence.

Even without a conviction, the movers and shakers can now work on needed changes in any laws about guns and stuff.... and maybe about related societal problems.

I still think that the FBC had something to do with this thing.     

More info will come about about the character of everyone involved during the civil trial and the burden of proof will be much different. 

Assuming there is one.

It doesn't make much sense to sue someone that doesn't have money.

I don't quite agree.  It does make sense if one is interested in justice, not money.  But if it is about money, this type of suit means that if Zimmerman is found guilty he can possibly serve time depending upon Florida Law, but if there is a financial finding that would mean that if Zimmerman ever wrote a book or took a movie deal along with a complete variety of money making endeavors, that money would go to the financial judgement i.e. the Martin's.

Debtor jail doesn't exist anymore (Unless it pertains to child support), so he's not getting any jail time.

Florida is considered a debtor's paradise, so it would likely be a waste of money to pursue a civil suit.

[Cheshire Cat]

Boy .... lots of discussion since I've dropped by.  The killing and the verdict is all over the media .... all over the world.

It's good though .... raises issues needing discussion and resolution.

Too bad there is no clear evidence at this point to convict GZ.  Maybe someone, out of the blue, will come forth as a witness, or will come up with a good video of the events ...  with sound ....  so that a jury can convict based on what actually happened.  As we've seen, its difficult to convict based on assumptions or emotional aspects.  And I am so happy for all citizens that murder convictions cannot be based on assumptions, but must rely on facts and on clear evidence.

Even without a conviction, the movers and shakers can now work on needed changes in any laws about guns and stuff.... and maybe about related societal problems.

I still think that the FBC had something to do with this thing.     

More info will come about about the character of everyone involved during the civil trial and the burden of proof will be much different. 

Assuming there is one.

It doesn't make much sense to sue someone that doesn't have money.

I don't quite agree.  It does make sense if one is interested in justice, not money.  But if it is about money, this type of suit means that if Zimmerman is found guilty he can possibly serve time depending upon Florida Law, but if there is a financial finding that would mean that if Zimmerman ever wrote a book or took a movie deal along with a complete variety of money making endeavors, that money would go to the financial judgement i.e. the Martin's.

Debtor jail doesn't exist anymore (Unless it pertains to child support), so he's not getting any jail time.

Florida is considered a debtor's paradise, so it would likely be a waste of money to pursue a civil suit.

hardly.  there are book deals and movie rights already in the offering.  THis murderer is going to walk scot free and make a milion dollars for killing a kid in the suburbs.  Welcome to America bro.

The exploitation of this tragedy is already shameful and growing.  Pierce Morgan on CNN had the young lady friend of Trayvon on his show.  The first thing out of his mouth to her was "You know you are famous now right"?  So it goes.  Politicians and folks looking to profit are all over this right now. 

[NotNow]

Lake,

I agree that negative impacts are a likely result.  "Provoking" can mean a lot of things.  If StephenDare! is following someone down the street calling them an "autistic fugue"  and commences to get pounded to the point of losing his life, does he forfeit his right to self defense of his life by his in ital actions?  (Sorry Dare!, just a recent example )

I can see many situations where the current law would seem to fit, and many where the current law does not seem correct.  Like many areas of law, it is a judgement call.  We can't legislate every detail.  I understand the history of race relations and the need for attention to equal treatment.  It must be tough to try to write these laws to fit in every case.  It must be tough to be a juror in such a case and make a decision to the best of your ability.  Our system has a series of decisions that have to be made before a conviction takes place.  Normally, a Police Officer must feel there is probable cause for arrest.  This decision is reviewed by both Police supervisors and in most cases of violence by the State Attorney's office.  The Prosecutor must agree not only with the probable cause but that there is sufficient evidence for conviction.  The Police and the State Attorney are also responsible for ensuring that any evidence which tends to exonerate the accused is collected and shared as well as any incriminating evidence.  A Grand Jury may be consulted.  A Judge will decide any motions and oversee the selection of a jury of peers.  A fair trial must be held.  A LOT of decisions and a LOT of people must decide before guilt is assigned.  In order for this system to be accepted, the people have to be reasonably certain that the people making the decisions are fair.  The people have to be reasonably certain that the laws are fair and equally apply as written.  This is where we are at.  The jury has spoken in the Zimmerman trial.  But it is apparent that a substantial number of the public does not have confidence in the system, be it the people making the decisions or the fairness and equality of the laws. 

What I am attempting to do here is establish any logical argument against the laws...the applicable Florida State Statutes.  I agree with Lake as to what actual statute applies, but I would hesitate to change the laws.  I recognize that there are many who would disagree with me.  But I am confident in my logic.  I believe that we now have to work on the confidence of the people in the legal system that we have.  I am still willing to entertain any suggested changes in the law as well.

[thelakelander]

The exploitation of this tragedy is already shameful and growing.  Pierce Morgan on CNN had the young lady friend of Trayvon on his show.  The first thing out of his mouth to her was "You know you are famous now right"?  So it goes.  Politicians and folks looking to profit are all over this right now. 

^Tom Joyner is going to pay to help her finish high school and her tuition for college.  Last night, he mentioned EWC, FAMU, BCC, and Florida Memorial as possibilities through a program he offers for inner city kids. This is one of the resulting storylines that will ultimately be ignored.  She'll have an opportunity to change her economic and environmental situation through continued education.

[NotNow]

Lake,

I agree that negative impacts are a likely result.  "Provoking" can mean a lot of things.  If StephenDare! is following someone down the street calling them an "autistic fugue"  and commences to get pounded to the point of losing his life, does he forfeit his right to self defense of his life by his in ital actions?  (Sorry Dare!, just a recent example )

I can see many situations where the current law would seem to fit, and many where the current law does not seem correct.  Like many areas of law, it is a judgement call.  We can't legislate every detail.  I understand the history of race relations and the need for attention to equal treatment.  It must be tough to try to write these laws to fit in every case.  It must be tough to be a juror in such a case and make a decision to the best of your ability.  Our system has a series of decisions that have to be made before a conviction takes place.  Normally, a Police Officer must feel there is probable cause for arrest.  This decision is reviewed by both Police supervisors and in most cases of violence by the State Attorney's office.  The Prosecutor must agree not only with the probable cause but that there is sufficient evidence for conviction.  The Police and the State Attorney are also responsible for ensuring that any evidence which tends to exonerate the accused is collected and shared as well as any incriminating evidence.  A Grand Jury may be consulted.  A Judge will decide any motions and oversee the selection of a jury of peers.  A fair trial must be held.  A LOT of decisions and a LOT of people must decide before guilt is assigned.  In order for this system to be accepted, the people have to be reasonably certain that the people making the decisions are fair.  The people have to be reasonably certain that the laws are fair and equally apply as written.  This is where we are at.  The jury has spoken in the Zimmerman trial.  But it is apparent that a substantial number of the public does not have confidence in the system, be it the people making the decisions or the fairness and equality of the laws. 

What I am attempting to do here is establish any logical argument against the laws...the applicable Florida State Statutes.  I agree with Lake as to what actual statute applies, but I would hesitate to change the laws.  I recognize that there are many who would disagree with me.  But I am confident in my logic.  I believe that we now have to work on the confidence of the people in the legal system that we have.  I am still willing to entertain any suggested changes in the law as well.

and it would be even more compelling if there was a meteor shower striking earth and we were being invaded by north korea, right?  Laws are not made for the extremes, isnt that what you constantly imply when it comes to limiting gun sales, but apparently when we are considering how to shoot kids, then we must always put ourselves in the most extreme scenario?  Whatever, notnow, this is some of the worst sophistry possible.

I have no idea what you are trying to say.  If you think the laws should be changed, then a useful input would be to suggest what change that should be. 

Please be civil.