Zimmerman Found Not Guilty

[sheclown]

[sheclown]

Thanks Sheclown, I appreciate your opinion.  My personal experience and opinion often seems so different from some here.  I find it interesting to try to see where people develop their beliefs.   Read this article and tell me what you think (I agree with its premis):

http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/07/radical-gun-control-zombies-exploit-grieving-black-community//#more

First, you visit the stalking thread and give me your insight to this situation.

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,18813.0.html

[JayBird]

I personally believe that these protests are only being fostered to distract people from demanding that the laws actually be changed. It's been but one week and already the public is becoming numb. Though I can understand and even agree with most of those protesting or advertising and promoting the protests, it is sad to see that they are not really adding to the beneficial outcome. Shouting justice for Trayvon will eventually extinguish itself and because there seems to be no clear goal or mission (except for that of expelling ones personal rage) the laws will not be affected because the professionals can play the wait and see game much longer. This would mean that we must wait for another colossal atrocity to occur and maybe then people will be formulate an actual attack plan to force the law of the people to be changed. And that, in my opinion is the greatest atrocity and injustice of them all.

[thelakelander]

^To be honest, as a black male I find the article in the legal link NN posted to be pretty insulting on a variety of levels.

[JayBird]

Legal Insurrection is usually laughable because they prefer to incite people rather than attempting to build a proper fact based platform in which to educate and foster creative ideas. As I've said before (below), you can make 3 completely different points out of every set of statistics. It just depends on what your end game is as to how you do so.

And like Abraham Lincoln said, "89% of the quotes and statistics you read in Internet forums have no real basis."

Stand Your Ground laws tend to track the existing racial disparities in homicide convictions across the U.S. — with one significant exception: Whites who kill blacks in Stand Your Ground states are far more likely to be found justified in their killings. In non-Stand Your Ground states, whites are 250 percent more likely to be found justified in killing a black person than a white person who kills another white person; in Stand Your Ground states, that number jumps to 354 percent.

Much more statistics and several studies
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/criminal-justice/is-there-racial-bias-in-stand-your-ground-laws/

For anyone whom thinks more white criminals get away with murdering blacks in Stand Your Ground states, that is wrong. They get away with more in every state. And of course that racial bias exists, one of these Zimmerman threads someone posted a great video today with absolute proof that a white person can commit a crime an get away with it easier than a minority. I don't think anyone debates that. The question is, how to change that.

The problem with these studies is that just like in finance, the books are so easy to cook and manipulate and fit whomever the person orchestrating the study needs it to say. Actually, it is exactly rigging say a parking study in Riverside-Avondale.

[carpnter]

What if, Martin did attack Zimmerman first as was alleged and he was beating him, it is reasonable that someone could be scared that their life is in danger and react the way Zimmerman did.

This is where the law needs to be fleshed out more, IMO. The evidence indicates GZ initiated the entire thing by profiling and following TM.  No doubt, he feared for his life when the victim turned the tables on him.  However, many don't believe the aggressor should be allowed to shoot people, at the point he feels threatened and then walk away free.  This is what most of the commotion is about.

How do we flesh it out?  If Zimmerman had started walking back to his truck as was stated then he was no longer the aggressor and Martin had nothing to defend himself from.  You can change the law to require a duty to retreat and Martin would have still been in the wrong in that situation because he did not retreat. 
You can make it unlawful to follow someone, but that opens a whole different can of worms, what happens when someone just happens to be walking the same direction as another person, but the person thinking they are being followed feels threatened, does that justify attacking the person following?
 
We do not know what really happened and all we have is the evidence and testimony that was presented at the trial.   The jury found him not guilty, that doesn't mean he is innocent, but it means that there was reasonable doubt when it came to the charges against him.  Any reasonable person looking at the evidence objectively should come to the same conclusion when it came to those charges.

[strider]

It has been true though out this country's history that there are only two ways to incite change in laws and policies.  The first is to be part of those proverbial smoke filled rooms in which all decisions seem to be made.  The second is to fill the room with angry people so loud that they can not be ignored. Civil rights has always been the latter.

If you are fighting money and power and have neither, the voices of many is the only thing that can carry the day.

The bottom line?  No one likes discomfort.  If you can make the those in power uncomfortable enough, then and only then will they listen.  Once they agree to listen, then you can present those fact based platforms, until then, it will be nothing but noise.

[thelakelander]

We've already been over this a million times over the last week. There's a strong opposing argument that would suggest laws should be possibly modified to keep stuff like this from legally happening. I don't have time to repost all my views that address the points you just raised but they can be found all over the first 40 pages of the Zimmerman thread.

[Shine]

Ok, I will admit, I am not going back through all 58 pages to see what has been discussed.

First, I hope people understand that "stand your ground" and the Zimmerman case are two very different subjects as "stand your ground" was not used in the Zimmerman defense.   Based on the evidence presented in the case, not saying that is exactly what happened, but the evidence is the only existing record,  Martin was engaged in a forcible felony against another – every state in the United States, and the Federal Government deem it generally acceptable to resist with force, up to deadly force, if it is reasonably necessary to stop the forcible felony. 

Both Martin and Zimmerman had other choices that night.  Both were involved in criminal activity or documented violence  prior to this incident.  Neither is an example of prudent, responsible or conservative behavior.  Zimmerman acted legally, but not responsibly.  That would be the subject of a civil case, but in Florida, statute preempts a civil lawsuit when a shooter is proven to have acted in self-defense.

Now, on the different subject of "stand your ground."  I was not in favor of the legislature changing the obligation to retreat in the self-defense statute.   I believe that if "you can retreat, you should retreat," and think the law should be change to read with that language.  People do not understand the self-defense law (profoundly evident in this discussion) and "stand your ground" significantly complicates it.  I hear people say "If I feel threatened, I can use deadly force – that is what the law says."  Well, that would be wrong.  What the law says is if "you reasonably believed. . ." – a legal standard that is, in and of itself, vague.  In this case and others, what is "reasonable" is the determination of a jury.    What exactly is a "Reasonable amount of fear?"  You are asking a population to follow a legal standard they have never been trained to understand and you are asking them to quantify an emotion – fear – which is perceptual and not quantifiable.


The idea that you should "retreat" before using deadly force provides the population with a behavioral rule that is understandable by a broad cross section of the population.  "Reasonable:" legal interpretation.  "Stop a forcible felony: legal understanding.   "Fear:" perceptual interpretation  "Retreat – back up:" a behavioral action.

I have various certifications to teach shooting sports and firearms safety. Including classes that meet the educational standard to apply for a concealed weapons permit. I do not find that most gun owners have a complete understanding of this subject.  I think it would also be prudent that Florida Concealed Weapons permits require much more training on the subjects of acceptable, legal use and that there be a written test applicant's must pass to receive a CWP.  It's interesting, in Florida (born prior to 6/1/75) you must take and pass an approved hunter safety class to get a hunting license.  Part of that, you must pass a 50 question written test.  CWP should include a written test as well.  I certainly support 2nd amendment rights, but we have the bar set a little too low, in my opinion.

[johnnyman]

Ok, I will admit, I am not going back through all 58 pages to see what has been discussed.

First, I hope people understand that "stand your ground" and the Zimmerman case are two very different subjects as "stand your ground" was not used in the Zimmerman defense.   Based on the evidence presented in the case, not saying that is exactly what happened, but the evidence is the only existing record,  Martin was engaged in a forcible felony against another – every state in the United States, and the Federal Government deem it generally acceptable to resist with force, up to deadly force, if it is reasonably necessary to stop the forcible felony. 

Both Martin and Zimmerman had other choices that night.  Both were involved in criminal activity or documented violence  prior to this incident.  Neither is an example of prudent, responsible or conservative behavior.  Zimmerman acted legally, but not responsibly.  That would be the subject of a civil case, but in Florida, statute preempts a civil lawsuit when a shooter is proven to have acted in self-defense.

Now, on the different subject of "stand your ground."  I was not in favor of the legislature changing the obligation to retreat in the self-defense statute.   I believe that if "you can retreat, you should retreat," and think the law should be change to read with that language.  People do not understand the self-defense law (profoundly evident in this discussion) and "stand your ground" significantly complicates it.  I hear people say "If I feel threatened, I can use deadly force – that is what the law says."  Well, that would be wrong.  What the law says is if "you reasonably believed. . ." – a legal standard that is, in and of itself, vague.  In this case and others, what is "reasonable" is the determination of a jury.    What exactly is a "Reasonable amount of fear?"  You are asking a population to follow a legal standard they have never been trained to understand and you are asking them to quantify an emotion – fear – which is perceptual and not quantifiable.


The idea that you should "retreat" before using deadly force provides the population with a behavioral rule that is understandable by a broad cross section of the population.  "Reasonable:" legal interpretation.  "Stop a forcible felony: legal understanding.   "Fear:" perceptual interpretation  "Retreat – back up:" a behavioral action.

I actually have various certifications to teach shooting sports and firearms safety.  I do not find that most gun owners have a complete understanding of this subject.  I think it would also be prudent that Florida Concealed Weapons permits require much more training on the subjects of acceptable, legal use and that there be a written test applicant's must pass to receive a CWP.  It's interesting, in Florida (born prior to 6/1/75) you must take and pass an approved hunter safety class to get a hunting license.  Part of that, you must pass a 50 question written test.  CWP should include a written test as well.  I certainly support 2nd amendment rights, but we have the bar set a little too low, in my opinion.

Wow , somebody who can put aside political ideology and who gets it.  Nice to see. +1

[JeffreyS]

The only evidence that Martin threw the first punch is the promise of the guy who killed him. The same promise that Z gave Hanity about not knowing about stand your ground laws that has proven to be a lie. So forceable felony is at best a guess when it comes to TM. 

Also stand your ground was used in this case as it radically changed the jury instructions.

[sheclown]

Father Michael Pfleger: Racism is in the DNA of America

By Eric W. Dolan
Sunday, July 21, 2013 12:27 EDT
Father Michael Pfleger at Justice for Trayvon rally in Chicago (Screenshot)

As Chicagoans rallied to demand justice for Trayvon Martin on Saturday, Father Michael Pfleger of St. Sabina's Catholic Church urged Americans to "stand your ground" against racism.

"My prayer is that today the rich seed of Trayvon's life will not just be a moment of anger but a launching pad," Pfleger said, "a launching pad to a moment to change America. As I watch people of all races and creeds and ages come together and speak out, I pray that we will finally come together in unity and create a voice of black and white and brown and young and old to come together with a cry for justice and quality that nobody can not listen to in America."

The activist preacher, a prominent critic of Chicago gun violence, said the United States needed to reexamine its soul and confront racism. The country's long history of institutional racism still lingered, despite the advances of the past century.

"Let's finally have the discussion on race and racial profiling because racism is in the DNA of America," Pfleger continued.

He concluded by saying it was not enough to rally in honor of Trayvon.

"We must come here and make up our mind that the bullet that killed Trayvon woke us up, and we ain't going to back to sleep until justice flows down."

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/07/21/father-michael-pfleger-racism-is-in-the-dna-of-america/

http://www.youtube.com/v/HmoP6XEG5ik?hl=en_US&version=3&rel=0

"We must come here and make up our mind that the bullet that killed Trayvon woke us up, and we ain't going to back to sleep until justice flows down."

[Shine]

while i agree with shine on changing the law, i do not agree with shine that Martin was engaged in a forcible felony.  He was standing his ground under the same laws that were given as instructions to the jury.

Simply being followed, and that is all the evidence shows happened, would in no way constitute - (from the law:)  "(1) He or she [Maritain] reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony;."  Again, "reasonably believes" is a legal standard based on the "Reasonable Man" Doctrine.   But, I would simply pose the question, if you were being followed by a stranger, would you approach him, ask if he "had a problem," say "you got one now," and punch him in the face?  Then pound his head into the a concrete sidewalk?  Would that be the action of a "reasonable man?"


That said, I am open to hear how Martian was "standing his ground" – what did Zimmerman do that would have made Martian "Reasonably fear" grievous bodily injury or death was imminent?

[Shine]

Father Michael Pfleger: Racism is in the DNA of America

People need to do a search on the Adrian Crump case.

Martian/Zimmerman is not an issue of race.

[JayBird]

Father Michael Pfleger: Racism is in the DNA of America

By Eric W. Dolan
Sunday, July 21, 2013 12:27 EDT
Father Michael Pfleger at Justice for Trayvon rally in Chicago (Screenshot)

As Chicagoans rallied to demand justice for Trayvon Martin on Saturday, Father Michael Pfleger of St. Sabina's Catholic Church urged Americans to "stand your ground" against racism.

"My prayer is that today the rich seed of Trayvon's life will not just be a moment of anger but a launching pad," Pfleger said, "a launching pad to a moment to change America. As I watch people of all races and creeds and ages come together and speak out, I pray that we will finally come together in unity and create a voice of black and white and brown and young and old to come together with a cry for justice and quality that nobody can not listen to in America."

The activist preacher, a prominent critic of Chicago gun violence, said the United States needed to reexamine its soul and confront racism. The country's long history of institutional racism still lingered, despite the advances of the past century.

"Let's finally have the discussion on race and racial profiling because racism is in the DNA of America," Pfleger continued.

He concluded by saying it was not enough to rally in honor of Trayvon.

"We must come here and make up our mind that the bullet that killed Trayvon woke us up, and we ain't going to back to sleep until justice flows down."

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/07/21/father-michael-pfleger-racism-is-in-the-dna-of-america/

http://www.youtube.com/v/HmoP6XEG5ik?hl=en_US&version=3&rel=0

"We must come here and make up our mind that the bullet that killed Trayvon woke us up, and we ain't going to back to sleep until justice flows down."

SheClown by posting this and numerous others it is apparent that you feel this is very true and that racism played a huge part in this. Which has been proven false, it only effected how the media portrayed it, but lets take a moment. You feel that racism is in our DNA, so we would then be born programmed to hate, regardless of what environment we were raised or life experiences we had. It would also mean that we cannot solve it, because racism is no different than having hazel eyes or red hair. We can cover it up with contacts and wigs but never change. So is this your opinion? We are forever doomed to be a racist species?