Zimmerman Trial

I believe the jury made the right decision, so is anyone taking the other side interested? We could start by each stating the issues of the case we find most relevant, then as we alternate posts we could both add more issues to our argument and address those of the other. I like the idea of limiting each post to a short paragraph, maybe no more than twice the size of this one.

Did Trayvon get justice?

sounds like a cool idea, first stalk someone, then shoot them then get away with it.
Justice indeed. I have a list of states that have mind numbing bad ideas and I will
not go to those states, fla has just entered that list.

Kropotkin

Certainly not, but going by what I know of the law and the particular case in question I think the right verdict was made, do you want to argue against that based on the merits of the case?

I agree with your sentiment, but I also believe there would have been a greater injustice if there was a guilty verdict.

I agree that some of the fla laws relevant to the case are mind numbingly bad, nonetheless they being what they are I have to believe that the non guilty verdict was correct.

Stuart, if your whole argument is going to be centered on the overcharging of Zimmerman by the prosecution, then overall this whole thing will be relatively vapid.

I have to ask the same question as Jonquil. And I might also add the question as to whether or not you believe that Zimmerman is responsible for the death of Martin, (technical definitions of murder nothwithstanding).

Did the Judge give proper instructions to the jury about the legal ramifications of self-defense being null when the so-called self-defender was the provoker of the attack on an unarmed teen who had been doing nothing wrong in the first place? The answer to that, btw, is no.

From everything I’ve read about this case, it was mishandled from the beginning due to racial bias. Not only that, but in the most bizarre surreal way, the victim was turned into the accused. Justice was very poorly served here, completely mangled actually.

I appear to be included among the potential opposition, and I can’t for the life of me divine why. I thought I was expressing considerable doubt in the efficacy of the law to assist the defender; “…and to be as clear as possible, I find no fault with the jury’s decision within the purview of the rules that govern the criminal justice system.” Though we may recognize non-physical forms of violence and/or aggression, the court evidently does not–or lacked substantial evidence. Thus, because all Zimmerman has to do is say he was attacked and feared for his life, there are no grounds for murder in the 2nd or manslaughter, regardless of who followed whom or any other factors we may or may not attribute. Here are some definitions,

2nd Degree Murder
-Murder with a Depraved Mind: Murder with a Depraved Mind occurs when a person is killed, without any premeditated design, by an act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind showing no regard for human life.
(accomplice felony 2nd degree is inapplicable)

Manslaughter
-Manslaughter by Act (Voluntary Manslaughter): Committing an intentional act that was neither excusable, nor justified that resulted in the death of another person.
-Manslaughter by Procurement (Voluntary Manslaughter): Persuading, inducing, or encouraging another person to commit an act that resulted in the death of another person.
-Manslaughter by Culpable Negligence (Involuntary Manslaughter): Engaging in “Culpably Negligent” conduct that resulted in the death of another person.

(definitions courtesy of http://www.richardhornsby.com/crimes)

I would argue that deliberately acting contrary to the advisement of a police entity, confronting, and subsequently shooting another human constitutes “recklessly acting without reasonable caution and putting another person at risk of injury or death,” but self-defense appears to trump all. That’s irrelevant anyway; my argument’s against the law, not the verdict.

This sort of thinking confuses me. He didn’t provoke any attack. Since when is being followed grounds for attacking someone? I understand his outrage at the notion of being followed by some stranger, but there were better ways to handle the situation than turning it into a physical confrontation. Even if Zimmerman did more than just follow him—if he actually did provoke a fight in some way—nobody could ever prove it.

I’m sorry _________, I read only part of the first post you made in the other thread and came to the wrong conclusion about your position.

I have yet to hear an argument from anyone for charging him with anything.

I don’t know if he’s responsible in a non legal sense. I don’t like that it’s legal to carry a gun around in public, concealed or not. It seems dangerous and reckless in almost any circumstance. But, based on almost any type of moral judgment I could make he hardly seems to be on a different level than others who carry a gun around in public regularly.

Stuart: there is a police-legal claws which is on the books and it pertains to rights versus responsibilities of both parties to an altercation.

The first one pertains to the need to escape versus the right to stand by and defend.

The second one is a rule which says in a defensive posture, one party in the altercation, can not use a method of force more than the other uses.

Both of these rules are subject to the circumstances.
Because the witnesses all had differing views of what constituted the altercation, the rules could be modified.

However, was zimmerman blocked from retreating or moving away from the area of conflict? Could he have safely done so?

Was zimmerman’s use of a gun prescribe to the notion of the parity of use between the effects of a lethal agency(gun) and that of bare hands,and a knife?

My conclusion would be, even without knowing about the crime scene, that this jury either did not understand the judge’s instructions, or, were not given understandable instructions, or were prejudicial in their take of the various conflicting and inconsistent interpretations given by both state and defense witnesses.

If the known and undisputed facts of the case aren’t enough to send Zimmerman to jail for at least manslaughter, then my argument is with the law as well.

He provoked an attack by getting out of his car with a gun and confronting Martin, with hostility and prejudice that is evident from his statements to the 911 dispatcher and from his behavior, particularly his ignoring the dispatcher’s command to stay in the car.

The real threat in the wake of this verdict is that it paves the way for more George Zimmermans. Judges, juries, and executioners all rolled into one.

I don’t know and I don’t think the jury knew which is in part why I believe they didn’t think that their was enough evidence.

I don’t think that was conclusively established.

I don’t believe it was a command and I doubt the dispatcher had that type of authority. Also, the dispatcher had been less the direct in his recommendation, he said something like, ‘you don’t need to do that’. Furthermore, I believe the dispatcher had told him twice before something to the effect that he wished that Zimmerman keep Martin in sight.

It’s common knowledge that you ought to do what the 911 operator says to do. That’s some pretty shaky ground Stu.

Zimmerman got out of his car after making it clear he wanted to confront the kid. If he had went along with what most reasonable people would have done, then he would have stopped following the kid, and there would have been no possibility of a confrontation. If the kid tried to attack him, he could have driven away.

If you told me that this guy ran over a kid with his car, and that you found a gun in the kid’s hand, that’d be different.

It was a non-emergency dispatcher, though I would agree that even then it is common knowledge that one should listen, but as I said the dispatcher was less than direct. If the dispatcher had said, ‘Do not leave your car,’ then I would be second guessing my view on this case. And if it happened to be illegal to disobey the non-emergency dispatcher then I would likely concede that the jury was wrong.

I can’t argue with that specifically because I don’t what evidence you’re basing that statement on.

It may appear that he was being unreasonable, but I don’t know that it was established, and even if it was I don’t believe it would definitively make the case.

I thought Martin confronted Zimmerman.

 Thaat's the point.  No one really knows who caused the initial confrontation. But it looks from all that's been said and done, that responsibility shifts toward Zimmerman.

No. Zimmerman was in his car. Then the 911 operator told him not to follow Martin. Then he got out of his car, followed him, and shot him for some reason. I guess it’s self defense. I don’t see how when you were the one following the kid.

We know that Zimmerman was in his car. We know that he got out of his car. We know that he was in close proximity to this kid after he was instructed not to follow.

I think getting out of your car and continuing to follow the kid makes Zimmerman the aggressor.