Zimmerman Found Not Guilty

[Cheshire Cat]

No one is disputing the fact that he should have stayed in the car.

then thats the end of the story.

Respectfully Stephen, that is not the end of the story.  It should have been but it wasn't and the law cannot convict someone for being stupid enough to follow someone they thought was suspicious.

Respectfully Diane. 

In the conversation with Jameson over why Zimmerman should have been tried and/or convicted, if no one disagrees that Zimmerman should have stayed in the car, then everything that happens after that is Zimmermans responsibility.  End of story.

Morally I agree it was.  Legally the law could not convict him for his actions.  The outcome I think we all agree was tragic and Zimmerman's choices set this all in motion.  That is fact.

[JayBird]

So, you are walking down the street and some stalker walks up and grabs you in your privates.  You resist and you hit the guy in the face.  He pulls a legal gun and shoots you.  Today there is a very good chance he will get away with it.

Not under the language of the "stand your ground" statute as I understand it.

A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. Section 776.013(3), Florida Statutes.

I would argue grabbing someone else's privates without their consent constitutes an unlawful activity, rendering the stand-your-ground defense inapplicable.

The offense of battery occurs when a person actually and intentionally touches or strikes another person against the will of the other. Section 784.03(1)(a)1., Florida Statutes.

Granted, without living witness, how can the state prove that the shooter committed the initial battery?  Under the prosecutorial immunity provision of Section 776.032, the police can't even question the shooter once he claims self defense unless they have probable cause that shows otherwise.  This is the statute that demands revision in my opinion.  Under centuries of common law, the burden was on the defendant to prove self-defense based on a preponderance of the evidence.  Now, the state must prove lack of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.  This burden is nearly impossible to meet without a living witness to testify.

The law states they may detain in order to investigate however they may not arrest. As per 776.032(2)

(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term "criminal prosecution" includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

[JeffreyS]

If Trayvon Martin didn't attack Zimmerman first he still lives today, end of story.

Yes of course the onus is on the 17 year old not to over react after he gave fleeing a try instead of the 28 year old who gave carrying a gun a try.  Sound logic.

[Jameson]

dude, guns arent meant to be a negotiation point in day to day living.  To treat them as such is irresponsible, and downright dangerous.

And I would totally suggest that you reconsider your fairly silly claims about my words.  I have said from the beginning that its about another gun owner murdering someone in cold blood, but getting away with it legally.

The race discussion was started by a fairly racist troll, and I responded to him.

Sorry that you are having trigger word issues.

You on page 19: "NO ONE questions the fact that profiling happened, and thats about as racist as it gets."

yes.  your trigger word.  If you don't actually know anything about the case, the context, or what people have actually said, why on earth are you debating this, Jameson?  You arent asking questions, you are making statements, and they don't make you seem either informed or terribly engaged. 

In fact they make you seem the opposite.

Really, Stephen? Because on Page 2 of this thread you link to and quote and article from HuffPo in reply to no one about Zimmerman and his family being a bunch of racists.

We'll just let this be, Stephen. Silence is golden.

Moving on.

[JeffreyS]

btw TM's overreaction would have likely left GZ sore for a while as most ass whippings do.  GZ overreaction was more deadly in nature. Disproportionate and everyone who has been in a fist fight knows it.

[Cheshire Cat]

If Trayvon Martin didn't attack Zimmerman first he still lives today, end of story.

I think making this determination is what has many in disagreement.  I believe it is the use of the word "first".
The facts of the actions of Zimmerman and Trayvon collide on that word.  Zimmerman got out of the car "first" so he was the first person whose actions led to the confrontation.  Testimony and forensic evidence indicated that Trayvon got physical "first".  In the end the actions of both led to the final outcome.  The jurors did believe that Trayvon punched Zimmerman and that Zimmerman was in fear of "great bodily harm or death". 

[JeffreyS]

Agree and I wonder why the judge wouldn't let the state put the first aggressor rule into the jury instructions.  They would still be free to determine if it applied. My understanding is that in cases where self defense is claimed the rule is often put in the jury instructions. 

I won't claim to know more about the law than the judge on the ruling but I would like an explanation from her.

[Cheshire Cat]

Agree and I wonder why the judge wouldn't let the state put the first aggressor rule into the jury instructions.  They would still be free to determine if it applied. My understanding is that in cases where self defense is claimed the rule is often put in the jury instructions. 

I won't claim to know more about the law than the judge on the ruling but I would like an explanation from her.

Do you know for a fact if the judge didn't allow it or if the prosecution didn't request it? 

[Demosthenes]

Is following someone enough to be considered first agressor? If so does that not make every neighborhood watch in america guilty of it?

I have not heard anyone claim Zimmerman initiated contact.

[bill]

Maybe there was some prejudice in this case....

Jeantel explained that during her telephone conversation with Trayvon Martin on the night of his death, she warned Martin to run from George Zimmerman because he might be a rapist:

PIERS MORGAN: And he was freaked out by it?

RACHEL JEANTEL: Yes. Definitely, after I say 'may be a rapist,' for every boy, for every man, every — who's not that kind of way, seeing a grown man following them, would they be creep out? ... And people need to understand, he didn't want that creepy ass cracker going to his father or girlfriend's house to go get — mind you, his little brother was there. You know — now, mind you, I told you — I told Trayvon it might have been a rapist.

Jeantel went on to say that any parent who would encourage his child to remain standing calmly in the face of such a threat — rather than to run or fight — would be likely to see his child "in the news for a missing person."

[JeffreyS]

Agree and I wonder why the judge wouldn't let the state put the first aggressor rule into the jury instructions.  They would still be free to determine if it applied. My understanding is that in cases where self defense is claimed the rule is often put in the jury instructions. 

I won't claim to know more about the law than the judge on the ruling but I would like an explanation from her.

Do you know for a fact if the judge didn't allow it or if the prosecution didn't request it? 

The prosecution requested it and the defense objected according to Thom Hartman on the SeriusXM left station.  He was interested in talking about it as though the defense lawyer who said it would turn out to be a mistake had strong armed the judge with the threat of appeal. The lawyer who was the guest did not know why she ruled as such but doubted the judge was intimidated by anyone.

[JeffreyS]

Is following someone enough to be considered first agressor? If so does that not make every neighborhood watch in america guilty of it?

I have not heard anyone claim Zimmerman initiated contact.

Legally I don't think so.  I do think if someone runs from you and you pursue without any knowledge of wrongdoing on their part it should (but doesn't)constitute a mild form of harassment.

[thelakelander]

I haven't read any of the other threads in a few hours but I'll try to give you the perspective I've grown up with and have been taught over the years on some of your observations.

^Interesting pieces to be sure.  What I am trying to come to balance with is what is happening beyond the rhetoric.  In Jacksonville at least some of the crimes being committed that place Blacks as the victims also have Blacks as the perp.  The stats I have seen in the past when working with those working on the issue of crime and prevention have pointed to a great deal of crime between Blacks that statistically is higher than other races when population is factored in.  Like the 09 area code.  I do believe that there is a great influence when it comes to poverty and environment as Ennis mentioned and look forward to more input about that.

The 09 area code is one with high poverty levels and a higher population density than most of Jacksonville.  It also has more limited access to many things we take for granted in other areas of town, such as retail, medical services, grocery stores, good schools, libraries, maintained parks, etc.  Historically, it's an area that has also been redlined, leading to lower property values and a lower chance in the growth of family wealth over an extended period of time. 

The stats you suggest on black-on-black crime are going to stand out here because it's a majority black area of town that is also an environment of economic distress.  For comparison's sake, find another dense population living in a certain section of a community (say any border town in Texas), and you can find similar statistics for different race.  The point I'm trying to make here is this is the "effect" of an economic/environmental situation.  Not racial. 

Race plays a larger role in American numbers because we have public subsidized policies, real estate practices, and laws that have helped create (on average) a large gulf in wealth based along skin color.  Many here will probably disagree, but I'm prepared to go into detail with certain laws and examples for anyone who's up to the challenge.

But there is something else going on as well.  During ride alongs with the JSO I have have witnessed many incidents where citizens call each other the "n" word with venom and they are all of the Black race.

Right or wrong, I grew up in an economically distressed black neighborhood.  For us, the "n" word was tossed around back and forth with no proplem.  It could be used to show respect, it could also be used to show disrespect.  I don't know exactly, why, that's just how it's always been since I was a little kid.  However, if someone white said it, it would always be taken as an insult and result in some type of confrontation.  I don't know if something similar takes place with other racial slurs in other communities, all I can share with you is my own experience within the community I know.

I have also seen flareups over the shade of Black one happens to be and value associated with one another based on degree of color.  That is something that tells me at least that this may go beyond economics and toward something unspoken and painful in the Black psyche.

This dates back to slavery.  Blacks were pitted against each other by slave owners to keep them divided.  The lighter you were, the better you were.  This plays into the idea of setting a long pattern of an economic hierarchy system based on skin color.  This wasn't really an issue in my community.  If you were black, you were black.  Didn't matter if you were dark or "red-boned".  I wasn't really introduced to this on a large level until going away to college.

Please know and accept me at my word that I am not laying down judgments but rather sharing ideas and experiences that have mostly come through my deep associations with members of the Black community.  I simply want to understand so that there can be healing and clarity of thought where needed in our community and society in general.

No judgment taken.  I have no problem explaining things I may have insight into via my own life experiences.  Also, recognize, we're not too far past the Jim Crow era.  For me, it's only one generation. My parents grew up during segregation and were young adults during the Civil Rights era.  My grandparent's young years fell between the 1920s and 1940s.  Until my granddad made his kids finish school, it was the norm for all boys to quit school in the third grade and become family income producers by sharecropping.  You can't create family wealth that way!

Nevertheless, my whole life, they've drilled me on their experiences and what to look out for myself.  I remember, the most embarrassed I've ever been in my life was in high school when my mom forbid me from going to the movies with two girls waiting for me outside (they were white and hispanic). Moms is barely 5' but she struck fear in my heart that day.  She's not racist but her life experiences with the KKK, civil rights era, etc. had shaped her mind that she could protect her almost grown baby by keeping him away from a potential situation that she felt was dangerous (and that actually was during most of her lifetime at that point).

With that in mind, me and my brothers grew being told, life isn't fair, we're starting behind the eight-ball, family member "x" was arrested or killed for being black, etc. and we'll have to work twice as hard to achieve success. 

For me, in my younger years, it led to me not even voting in elections because my hood had always been the hood regardless of what party was in office.  Not believing in the concept of trickle down economics, based on personal life experience, is one of the primary reasons I'm an independent today. However, all that childhood preaching, combined with seeing others in the hood turn out working labor jobs for little cash, living check to check or in prison has turned into drive for me now.

[I-10east]

TMZ has some good coverage of the verdict, hell more factual and newsworthy than MSNBC

www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1U6x5Y0aVw

[acme54321]

I am glad you are back to making reasonable points. I agree the laws are the biggest problem in this case.

I am still wondering when he cocked that slide? Certainly the contention isn't that he pulled the gun during the fisticuffs (that were in this one magical instance going to lead to death), released the safety, operated the two hand action of the slide but then couldn't execute a warning shot or a leg shot  instead of a perfect "one shot one kill" style shot to the middle of TM's heart.

Serious question:  Have you ever fired a pistol?  Or a firearm? 

Shotguns many times, a rifle twice and the only hand guns were for BBs and pellets.  Clay pigeons and a few failed hunting trips.

My question was serious as well is that not a two hand action gun?

No.  It's double action with no external safety.  As long as there is a round in the chamber it will fire if the trigger is pulled.  A round would be chambered before the weapon is holstered.  Not many concealed carry guns have traditional safeties or require a round be chambered immediately before firing, those features would defeat the purpose.

Additionally, firing any sort of warning shot is extremely bad practice and illegal.