OT: Zimmerman Not Guilty

[TobyTyler]

I don't know how they didn't arrest him that night. I find it shocking. Perhaps they shouldn't have arrested him 40+ days later, but it blows my mind that he walked away the same night he shot and killed someone who was running away from him.

LOL! You can't possibly be that naive, can you?

 

[TobyTyler]

I'm the one using flawed logic? Sure thing, boss. At least I know what the word confrontation means.

I wouldn't have guessed that judging by the way you use it in this thread.

 

[TobyTyler]

They're the "great equalizer" when both parties are armed. When they're not, they allow weaklings to be bullies, or bullies to be even bigger bullies. Zimmerman probably doesn't get out of the car unless he has the gun.

Probably not.

 

[spacedoodoopistol]

to me the fact that had Zimmerman been convicted I seriously doubt an appeals court would have found the evidence insufficient to sustain a conviction and overturned the jury's verdict.

Honestly I don't think this has too much bearing on the situation. And similarly, I think Zimmerman's side has done a great job of changing the questions......like making it a question of who attacked first, or about Martin's character, or racism. Distracts from the real question of should you be able to shoot someone in a fight.

I think most people believe that there is something seriously wrong with the law and/or culture if someone can do what Zimmerman did, regardless of many of these questions and issues people get stuck on.

 

[yossarian]

Honestly I don't think this has too much bearing on the situation. And similarly, I think Zimmerman's side has done a great job of changing the questions......like making it a question of who attacked first, or about Martin's character, or racism. Distracts from the real question of should you be able to shoot someone in a fight.

I think most people believe that there is something seriously wrong with the law and/or culture if someone can do what Zimmerman did, regardless of many of these questions and issues people get stuck on.

This thread has been all over the map and the points of discussion have ranged from the legal and civilian definition of "stalking", to gun control in foreign countries, to race relations, and last but not least, the criminal justice system in Florida. My comment probably had something to do with the last topic. People have been outraged that he was even charged.

 

[MHSL82]

Directed verdicts for acquittals rarely happen, no judge wants to be on the hook for acquitting a defendant accused of a serious crime. For all the outrage on this board, to me the fact that had Zimmerman been convicted I seriously doubt an appeals court would have found the evidence insufficient to sustain a conviction and overturned the jury's verdict. That in itself tells me it was an open enough question that people need to relax.

Yeah, my law professor talked about the different decisions you make considering the unlikelihood of getting it but the advantage of doing so. It's not like you would threaten to make a motion for directed verdict to get the prosecution to charge manslaughter instead of murder. You just file the motion or not. And you'd lose most every time in a murder case. You'd have a better shot at the preliminary hearing (though at the time of the directed verdict motion it'd be too late for that obviously). If you had a case to win, you might as well file the motion and then go to the jury and then try to appeal. You of course have to make the motion for directed verdict in order to preserve some rights. But there would be no point in using that as a point of negotiation. If you have a good case you'd rather the prosecution just lose, if you're the defense.

I don't know why I went in the tangent of negotiation, but I did, so I explained rather than delete.

 

[Flauge]

he never should have been charged. the originally prosecutor resigned because he felt charging Zimmerman was wrong.

i feel bad that someone's son has died. but end of the day, the state of florida was wrong for bringing charges. they had zero evidence Zimmerman's story wasnt true, and a decent amount of evidence Zimmerman was telling the truth. Eye witnesses saw Trayvon on top of Zimmerman in an "mma style ground and pound." Zimmerman had a broken nose.. a split head. It's simple self defense. Stand your ground or not.. doesnt matter. In all 50 states if you reasonably fear death or great bodily harm you can shoot someone. With a split open head, a broken nose, and someone on top of you punching you.. it is a reasonable assumption.

 

[spacedoodoopistol]

In all 50 states if you reasonably fear death or great bodily harm you can shoot someone.

The guy punched him a few times, enough to give him a bloody nose but not even enough to give him a shiner or really any other marks.

If you're allowed, in America, to shoot someone after they've punched you a few times then simply say "I feared for my life", the law is absolutely broken.

I understand the not guilty decision, I understand reasonable doubt, but again my problem is the law itself, which is completely absurd.

 

[erckm510]

he never should have been charged. the originally prosecutor resigned because he felt charging Zimmerman was wrong.

i feel bad that someone's son has died. but end of the day, the state of florida was wrong for bringing charges. they had zero evidence Zimmerman's story wasnt true, and a decent amount of evidence Zimmerman was telling the truth. Eye witnesses saw Trayvon on top of Zimmerman in an "mma style ground and pound." Zimmerman had a broken nose.. a split head. It's simple self defense. Stand your ground or not.. doesnt matter. In all 50 states if you reasonably fear death or great bodily harm you can shoot someone. With a split open head, a broken nose, and someone on top of you punching you.. it is a reasonable assumption.

Huh? In most states carrying a concealed gun in public would mean you're going to jail. Come on now.

 

[Kinzu]

You talk about the difference in character between the two. Zimmerman had been arrested and charged with assaulting an officer. He had (has?) an alcohol problem. He had a restraining order taken out against him. He was trained in MMA - granted he may not have been good at it - and was carrying a gun. He was trailing one of "these assholes" and a "punk." And he chased Martin when Martin ran. But Martin was clearly the aggressor when they met face to face? I don't take that at face value. There's no doubt Martin got the better of the fight. That doesn't mean he started it.

You also mention Martin's age as a reason he might make bad decisions. That's why I have referred to Martin as a kid. Not because he is small and weak, but because he might be more likely to make impulsive decisions. And when scared, he might be more likely to lash out. Especially if/when running away didn't work. Zimmerman chased someone while carrying a gun and shot him. It's hard for me to say self-defense should apply in that sort of case. Especially when he wasn't seriously injured.

But do you know for sure Zimmerman pulled the gun on Martin or are you assuming he did? How do you know Martin didn't go for the gun? How do you know Zimmerman didn't pull out the gun just to detain Martin, and then got attacked? How do you know there was not a fight over control of this gun?

In any case George having the gun is the reason Martin is not dead. If he didn't have the gun on him maybe neither of them see the immediate threat of death starting them down. Again though it's such a thin line our society lives on because what if George didn't have the gun but Martin did? How does that change this story? Do we still look at the same way giving the outcome?

What if Martin had shot Zimmerman? How differently do you think the media attention would have been on this trial? Do you think he would have been charged? Do you think he could have won a trial based on the same evidence?

In a fair trial the outcome would have been the same either way in my opinion.

 

[Kinzu]

There's no law that says you CAN "stop a potential crime in progress." The law allows a citizen to make an arrest when he or she observes a misdemeanor, or when the person has committed a felony. Zimmerman didn't observe any crimes, and Martin had not committed a felony.

As for the Flight 93 analogy, those people saw terrorists engaged in multiple felonies. Not to mention they were in a position where there was no way to get assistance. Authority figures might not have suggested the actions that they took, but they sure as shit wouldn't have told them not to do what they did. And my recollection of that incident is that people on the plane had heard about the twin towers when they called loved ones on their cell phones, and only after that did they take action. Given that, I think it's likely authority figures would have recommended doing something. That comparison is just distasteful in this conversation.

Yeah I realized it was a horrible analogy as I was typing it and should have just cut it out.

I'll give a better situation though that makes more sense.
You walk into a convenient store and see a shady looking guy of whatever race you want to see but different than yours. They are yelling at the store clerk who looks legit scared for his/her life. You walk up and ask the guy what's wrong and get attacked. You end up beating the shit out of the guy and putting him in the ER.

You at no point in this know who this guy was or what the yelling was about. It turns out it was the store's boss yelling at his employee and he is pressing charges on you. You say he started the fight, but his employee lie's and backs up his boss saying you attacked. What exactly in any of this did you do wrong? You're now painted as profiling this guys boss and beating him senseless when all you wanted to do originally is calm the situation down.

Now use the same scenario but this time the guy is not the boss. This time the guy is a robber and has a gun on him. You step in and he pulls the gun on you. You fight him for control of the gun and end up shooting him. You're now a hero for stopping a robbery and no one will think twice that you killed the guy.

Both scenario's start out the same, but both have drastically different outcomes. How could you have avoided the whole thing? Mind your own business, but that is always easier said than done sometimes.

 

[mcro_rave_2001]

quick question for you Martin supporters. If Martin didn't like someone following him why didn't he call police? Wouldn't calling the police be the smart thing to do instead of confronting the person following you?

 

[erckm510]

quick question for you Martin supporters. If Martin didn't like someone following him why didn't he call police? Wouldn't calling the police be the smart thing to do instead of confronting the person following you?

This was already discussed. Zimmerman already contacted the cops. What would Martin calling the cops accomplish?

 

[mcro_rave_2001]

This was already discussed. Zimmerman already contacted the cops. What would Martin calling the cops accomplish?

ummm...to let them know he is being followed. not sure why Zimmerman calling the police means Martin can't call the police as well, care to explain?

 

[Kinzu]

This was already discussed. Zimmerman already contacted the cops. What would Martin calling the cops accomplish?

It wouldn't have hurt anything. They would probably have suggested to him to keep moving and get in doors. Maybe at least one of them would have listened to the authorities. I don't understand the logic of wanting to come face to face with someone you think is following you. I don't get why Martin didn't run for his house and call the cops. They both made really stupid decisions that led to them coming face to face.

 

[jonvi]

This was already discussed. Zimmerman already contacted the cops. What would Martin calling the cops accomplish?

If TM had called the police, it would have allowed the prosecution to show TM was looking for police involvement, not running from it.

With Zimmerman calling the police, that act allowed the defense to pass Zimmerman off as the good guy.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

quick question for you Martin supporters. If Martin didn't like someone following him why didn't he call police? Wouldn't calling the police be the smart thing to do instead of confronting the person following you?

Not a TM supporter but I did think Zimm would get manslaughter.

FL law, and a witness to the fight was the difference I think.

 

[EaseUrStorm]

You talk about the difference in character between the two. Zimmerman had been arrested and charged with assaulting an officer. He had (has?) an alcohol problem. He had a restraining order taken out against him. He was trained in MMA - granted he may not have been good at it - and was carrying a gun. He was trailing one of "these assholes" and a "punk." And he chased Martin when Martin ran. But Martin was clearly the aggressor when they met face to face? I don't take that at face value. There's no doubt Martin got the better of the fight. That doesn't mean he started it.

You also mention Martin's age as a reason he might make bad decisions. That's why I have referred to Martin as a kid. Not because he is small and weak, but because he might be more likely to make impulsive decisions. And when scared, he might be more likely to lash out. Especially if/when running away didn't work. Zimmerman chased someone while carrying a gun and shot him. It's hard for me to say self-defense should apply in that sort of case. Especially when he wasn't seriously injured.

It is a very loose assumption in this case that he "chased" TM. The assertion from the other side is he was returning from his car after walking back from the street sign, which was probably not coincidentally in the direction that TM ran. That is where Zimmerman claimed TM appeared and assaulted him. The physical evidence supported Zimmerman's account of the story. It was not proven that he chased him, just like it was not proven who started the physical confrontation. Here is to better picture the area:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEpCnpnHODI

 

[erckm510]

ummm...to let them know he is being followed. not sure why Zimmerman calling the police means Martin can't call the police as well, care to explain?

Ok so say Martin calls the cops? Tells them some guy is following him. They ask Martin do you feel like your life is in danger? You tell me what Martin says.

I just know that if I felt someone is following me then calling the cops and waiting doesn't seem like the right option if I don't know what that guy is following me for. I would either confront the person or run away.

 

[erckm510]

It wouldn't have hurt anything. They would probably have suggested to him to keep moving and get in doors. Maybe at least one of them would have listened to the authorities. I don't understand the logic of wanting to come face to face with someone you think is following you. I don't get why Martin didn't run for his house and call the cops. They both made really stupid decisions that led to them coming face to face.

It's fight or flight. Some people won't back down and will want to know why the fuck this person is following me.