Slashdot Mirror
George Zimmerman Acquitted In Death of Trayvon Martin
theodp writes "Following nearly three weeks of testimony, a jury of six women in the George Zimmerman trial has found the former neighborhood watch volunteer not guilty of second-degree murder. He was also found not guilty of the lesser offense of manslaughter, which the jury also weighed."
Stand your ground was not used as a defense in this case so no relation at all.
Double Jeopardy doesn't apply if they file a civil case. OJ won the murder case, and lost a wrongful death civil suit, costing him millions.
SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me
I'm amazed how uninformed you are..... Both witnesses for the defence and the pathologist testified that GZ was on the bottom. CNN discussed this extensively as well. I have no axe to grind either way, but I do get annoyed at people who have no clue.
Good example of the 'news' warping the views. GZ defense claims he did not continue following Martin and no witness offered any evidence that he did. Rhetorical claims were made in the opening and closing statements by the prosecution that he did but no evidence by any of the wittiness suggested he did. This is a good example of why he was guilty in public opinion but the Prosecution lost in the trial.
George Zimmerman:
- police record, including being accused of domestic violence, resisting arrest, and battery of law-enforcement officer
You mean: battery of a plain-clothed person who started a bar fight and only identified himself as a law-enforcement officer after the fight and you mean resisting a fight that was reclassified as an arrest attempt only after the instigator later identified himself as an officer?
A more reasonable person would call that a history of self-defense. "Accused of ... Accused of ... Accused of ... " is bullshiat intimidation tactics.
1. Evidence about Martin's background would help the jury assess his character and might speak to his motivation. It looks like they were barely able to get in the results of the toxicology report that showed Martin still had traces of marijuana in his blood.
2. Zimmerman wasn't aggressive in getting out of his car. If he had closed the distance and attacked Martin, that would be aggression, assault. Martin was the one that attacked Zimmerman. He was on top of him throwing MMA style punches when he was shot.
3. "Stand your ground" was never a part of the case, ever. It was part of inflamed commentary. Zimmerman didn't attack Martin.
Race had nothing to do with the case. It was simple self-defense. Martin attacked Zimmerman by surprise, started beating his head against the curb, and was on top of his throwing MMA type punches. Zimmerman's life was in immediate peril, but he was able to pull his gun and shoot Martin. To the extent that race played a part, it was generally working against Zimmerman in that many commentators soft pedaled, concealed, or ignored derogatory information about Martin, as well as exculpatory information about Zimmerman. NBC doctored audio to make Zimmerman appear racist. The media kept referring to Zimmerman as white, when he is Hispanic with a black grandfather (or maybe great-grandfather). Despite the fact that pictures of the grown Martin were available, including ones showing some more troubling aspects of his life, the media kept showing pictures of him when he was much younger and innocent appearing. The media downplayed Martin's troubled history, and participation in fight club type activity, and his interest in martial arts. It goes on, and on, and on. Probably because of Zimmerman's name, the media was out for a lynching of what they thought was a white guy that had killed a young black man. They often got things wrong, and stirred the pot. Even the US Justice department engaged in some troubling behavior.
In Audio Recording, Department of Justice Official Urges Protesters to Seek ‘Justice’ for Trayvon Martin
Based on your flavor of your questions I have the sense that you may have gotten most of the commentary on this case from a particular slice of the web that hasn't always provided good information on this. My suggestion is that you do some reading at this site Legal Insurrection. It has some interesting and informed commentary, by actual lawyers, on the case. Fair warning - you may not like what you read, but it is likely to be much more legally accurate and closer to the truth than what it sounds like you have been reading. The truth doesn't always taste good when it doesn't fit our expectations.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Civilians don't get to do "warning" shots. The deal with the use of deadly force is that it either is or is not justified. There isn't a situation where it is justified to "just try and scare them" with a gun.
In the case of something like this, the justification would be that you feared for your life. In most places that allow lethal force for self defense, that is a valid reason. The thing is, just firing a warning shots could show that you really DIDN'T have an imminent fear for your life. You weren't so afraid you felt the need to shoot your attacker, just "warn" them. Thus you weren't really in fear for your life, so no justification.
I am not aware of jurisdictions that allow you to use guns to just try and scare people for various reasons. You can use them to defend yourself and sometimes others, but only in grave cases. If the case isn't grave enough for that, then you aren't justified in using it in any way.
Basically as a civilian in a self defense situation don't draw your gun unless to shoot and don't shoot except to kill. If the situation isn't serious enough to warrant that, then a gun isn't the answer.
Are you actually interested in facts? If so, watch this video. Otherwise, just keep trolling.
Suggestion: before deciding, read the court transcript and review the evidence. That will give you a better, but still insufficient understanding of the case as presented to the jury - which has very little to do with the case as presented to us, the great unwashed.
Having said that, and IANAL, but much of the relevant facts (the details) haven't really made it into the media. Apparently, according to his statement to police, at the time of the actual conflict, Zimmerman was no longer following Martin (had he lost him?) and was returning to his car. Martin jumped out of some bushes (apparently he circled back?), and the fight started. The fact that Z was initially following M is only somewhat relevant - it goes to Z's state of mind. AFAIK, unless there's a court order or something, it's not illegal to follow someone around.
The 'Stand your ground' law was never part of this except in the media. It was not applicable to either party.
Martin was being portrayed as an innocent young naive boy who happened to be out shopping. His background and recent history (showing apparent pot smoking, racist remarks and some other things I forget) could have helped show that he was actually capable of attacking Zimmerman. Since that was never brought into court, it can't be used as a political tool to argue that Zimmerman got off - the prosecution was given every opportunity to railroad Zimmerman (regardless of one's opinion of the cast, had Zimmerman been convicted the case would have been tossed on appeal due to the judge's and prosecutor's actions). So Zimmerman was acquitted even despite having every possible weapon thrown at him.
WRT reporting, NBC actually cut Zimmerman's 911 call to make it seem like he was making racist remarks - I am fully expecting ZImmerman to sue NBC, and settle for something in 7 figures. Martin was shown on TV multiple times as a cute 9- or 10-year old. The race thing was amplified over and over again - Zimmerman was repeatedly described as a 'white hispanic' - whatever that is. As the old adage says, "if it bleeds it leads" - the media are in the business of selling eyes to the advertisers, and sometimes they go to far. Also, if you've ever had the media report on something that you are personally familiar with, I'll be willing to bet that you said they got it all wrong. Extrapolate, and you'll note that they get it all wrong most of the time. Most media people these days are undereducated journalism majors, who can only be described as 'the naive man on the street, expressing ignorant amazement at the goings on around them." IMHO, of course. :D
It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
What are the odds of getting six white people on a jury?
For a state with 16% black population, there is a 35% chance of getting six non-black people on a jury.
What are the odds of tossing heads six times in a row?
Not sure of the relevance. The probability is of course 1/64 (1.6%). Perhaps when you finish high school you will have learned some basic probability so you won't be amazed at such events.
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
That was because she went to HIS house, and actually left the house to go get the gun....