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."
I'm amazed the Media didn't manage to convict him, despite how hard they tried.
Has Slashdot become a politics/crime board now?
I'm not surprised that the final verdict is not guilty on any count, since the state didn't show proof of guilt.
I am surprised the jury members didn't cave in to the threats of violence and find him guilty of the manslaughter that was thrown in at the end.
Good for them for doing their jobs.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
I normally dislike those people who whine about this or that story being on Slashdot, because there is generally some kind of technological thread to it or else social issues that technical people need to be aware of.
However there seems to be NO reason to have this story on Slashdot. There's no technological angle. There's nothing in the trying of this that really relates to technology in any kind of larger context. So come on, leave general news on whatever sites people use for news and try to keep at least some shred of technology within Slashdot stories.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
> Everyone feels they are right, and everyone feels strongly.
> Is it possible for commenters to keep that in mind?
I'm guessing "no".
~.~
I'm a peripheral visionary.
It's better to let a guilty man go free then to put an innocent man behind bars.
yes, and in a few years when only the police has guns, don't be surprised when they trample all over your rights and do whatever they want.
Anyone who followed this trial in even a cursory manner and disagrees with a not guilty verdict based on the evidence presented by the state should spend some time looking in the mirror. The level of cognitive bias required to believe that the state proved murder or manslaughter beyond a reasonable doubt is staggering. Heck, the state came closer to proving self defense beyond a reasonable doubt than they did to proving their own case.
Look, one need not believe that Zimmerman is a good guy or that any of his decisions were wise or even competent in order to understand that the state did not prove their case. He can be a bad guy and have done bad things and still be not guilty of the crime charged.
Seems to me that paying closer attention to the details of the case would be a solid choice for the media, yet much of the hype regarding this case has been purely emotional. I know it's good for ratings, but it makes the "news" seem foolish these days...
The disturbing thing is that in a more civilized part of the country, beating somebody that's on the ground would entitle the person on the ground to self defense, not the person that instigated the fight and is now standing over the victim. Which is what witnesses testified to and is the only way that GZ could have used the weapon that he would have been lieing on if pinned.
I'll add this to my list of reasons why I'm not going to be going to the FL ever again. I'm not sure how anybody can think that menacing a kid can turn into legitimate self defense.
I think it boils down to presumption of innocence. There was not enough concrete evidence of exactly what happened to find him guilty. I suspect he committed manslaughter, and that Trayvon escalated the situation, and that under our legal system Zimmerman should not be found guilty. Given the uncertainty, it is an accurate reflection of our preference to let a guilty man go free than to convict an innocent man.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
I for one don't want to live in a society where you could be robbed blind just because a brazen thief takes advantage of the fact they cannot legally be shot if they steal from you.
The most striking thing to me has always been that both actors would have been within their rights, under "Stand Your Ground," to attack the other.
The subject is referring to the doorway gag.
.: Semper Absurda
Defending himself from an armed stranger following him...now there's your problem.
If you walk somewhere in a public space - I can follow you. I can even ask you a question. Those are legal acts, even if you don't like me, or don't want to talk to me. (Also, Martin had no idea Zimmerman was armed. If Zimmerman was running around with a brandished weapon out there, it would have been some serious legal bad news for him. Seriously...even if you have no interest in it - take a CCW course sometime to familiarize yourself with the laws.)
Now if I am following you and trying to find out who you are or what you're doing - that's legal. If you attack me for it - it's not. At that point I need to either get away from that situation (recommended) or defend myself (as a last resort - as I might be pinned to the ground, etc.)
This case isn't difficult. The police didn't even feel that there was enough evidence to arrest him that night. This isn't the first time someone has ever shot another person in self defense. If someone defends themselves in the event of a physical attack, should they go to prison for winning the fight? Seriously...how does this work for you?
Is a woman who is raped and murdered morally superior to one who explains to the nice officer how the gentleman came to get a bullet in his head?
The site Legal Insurrection has some interesting and informed commentary about the trial, by actual lawyers.
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
"Due process" does not include the media, nor the will of politicians. Due process was violated when this went to trial after all those who had to proper authority and jurisdiction did their jobs and said that there wasn't a case against Zimmerman. Yet their authority was usurped by powers that are biased and not neutral.
Better known as 318230.
Remember that they looked for people who hadn't followed the leadup to this a ton. Not everyone gives a fuck what is in the media. Also it turns out in most cases jurors do a reasonable job of following what the judge tells them. The judge tells them what evidence they can consider, and what is required for a charge, and they usually listen to that, at least reasonably well.
The system is far from perfect, but they really do try and get people who have little to no knowledge about a case beforehand, and they try to instruct those people as to what is and is not to be considered.
Also the prosecution screwed up their case at several points, and that makes a big difference as well.
Remember that while the rest of the world (that was interested) was following the media accounts, the jurors were following only what happened in the courtroom.
or officials want. Juries tend to see through the attempts to impose social justice over legal justice. This trial became a farce when the prosecution was allowed to change their charge on the fly, worse they almost got totally into silly land on trying to change up the charges.
Now comes the fun part, will the Feds get involved directly and attempt a hate crime charge?
Zimmerman was an over reactive wanna be cop that created a situation that got out of his control. Frankly if Tray had survived I would have expected him to use the same defense. Still witnesses and crime scene evidence were not in favor of the prosecution and the local sheriff was right in not trying to field a case that could not be one.
We the people won, both Zimmerman and Martin lost. We won because the law was upheld. Martin paid the ultimate price and Zimmerman will pay the rest of his.
The tragedy beyond this one death is the number of people who died and their cases will never be given the same attention.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
No matter what people may think really happened there is obviously "reasonable doubt" in this case, and that is what the jury rightfully concluded.
Apparently the idiots in the NAACP are unfamiliar with an area
of the law which is known as "double jeopardy".
All the NAACP is these days is a bunch of whining trouble-causing
idiots.
The real bottom line is that black people act in ways that result in harm
to themselves. Bill Cosby said as much some years ago and was met with
derision, but that did not lessen the truth of his comment.
By the way, I am black, and the behavior of some blacks sickens me. In this case,
if Martin had not attacked Zimmerman, Martin would quite likely still be alive today.
The correct response when someone is following you is not to attack them, it is to
put distance between the person following and yourself. Martin was a violent person
and he paid the price for his violent behavior.
GZ: "Hi, neighborhood watch. Do you live around here?"
TM: "I'm going to attack you now."
GZ: "Holy shit, my face is getting pummeled and my head is being slammed into the concrete. I should defend myself before I die."
Just saying, that is a possible way that questioning a high school student could turn into legitimate self defense.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
To anyone who is upset that this story popped up despite not strictly relating to computers, three things:
One: why didn't you stop it?
Two: Slashdot's motto isn't "News for linux, news that linuxes." Other nerds have different interests in you. You should realize this by now.
Three: If you don't care, go back in your browser. You do not need to click on every link on slashdot! DO NOT CLICK ON THE ONES YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT!
if Zimmerman didn't have his little penile replacement with him he would have stayed in the car like he was told to instead of trying to act like a vigilante stalking that uppity black kid armed with skittles.
Just because one of the 5 talking heads on a panel was irrationally pro-Trayvon, doesn't mean you have a point.
It's obvious that the media was either 1) Stupid or 2) Complicit with racism.
Even choosing the subject to discuss, it's so easy to see the bias towards Zimmerman (b/c the gun lobby and conservatives in general say him as a bellwether).
Ex: a news panel discussing the decision not to allow blood test results showing Trayvon had used marijuana in the last 60 days before his killing.
That's racist b/c the whole notion is absolutely immaterial. First, the discussion should have been about **ZIMMERMAN's** blood contents, b/c oh, **he wasn't tested for drugs/alcohol** until much later if at all. Second, weed does not cause aggression and never has been claimed or evidence shown in scientific tests that it causes aggression.
Everyone knows that the "scary doped-up black man" trope has been used as a cultural Jim Crow since the '30s.
If these concepts are new to you, shame on you. This is part of American history and our daily struggle as humans living in a community.
Thank you Dave Raggett
I'm not usually one to claim that stuff doesn't belong here; in fact, I usually make shitty, trollish posts in whatever thread brings that up. I'm not upset, and I came here specifically to argue both sides with vaguely racist nonsense and make people angry, so I'm pretty content. But I wholeheartedly agree: this garbage does not belong on a Slashdot which claims to be a tech news site. If Timothy wants to post this, he should go back to Reddit. This isn't a complain about a perceived abundance of Bitcoin and Raspberry Pi articles, it's a complaint about blatant clickbait to stir up page views. If I had any decency myself, I'd say it shameful that Timothy would so low as using a racially and politically charged (understand that I'm referring to the media circus, irrespective of what the true truth was) tragedy to do so. But, as I've said, I'm ruining the article myself, so I have no room to condemn him ^.^~!
So the black woman on the jury was a closet racist? How did that help Zimmerman?
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Trayvon Martin was a violent, racist sociopath, eh? Sounds like you're the one constructing a narrative separate from the facts.
I agree that the legal ruling in this case was the right one. There was no evidence to convict Mr. Zimmerman. But claiming that you know exactly what happened that night, or that you know anything about Trayvon Martin's personality is absolutely ludicrous.
Then you spent your mod points well. That summary was rubbish. Absolute rubbish. Please, show evidence of badgering. Martin jumped Zimmerman.
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
He doesn't know. sadly in today's age, anything you don't agree with is racist. It's because they cannot support their opinions with facts and reality and need to limit the conversation to menial flaws of the person you disagree with instead of the context of the actions or disagreement.
there is a growing group of people who simply cannot debate ideas and have to shut the debate down in order to preserve their view points. The GP is one of them.
Warning shots are illegal and dangerous. A gun is deadly force. If someone needs to be shot then shoot them, Don't fire the gun in a random direction and kill an innocent person.
You are a fool. The majority of murders are carried out with hands and feet. And the people with any sense in their skulls are not going to wait and see how things go before they defend themselves, because at that point, they're either dead or dying. A teenage kid can kill a grown man with one punch. I for one will never underestimate somebody who has chosen to become violent. They might actually be emboldened to make such a choice because they are good at it, and anybody who lets them gain the upper hand deserves what follows. For my part I'm not going to wait for my own funeral.
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
his *life was not in danger*
Maybe your life wouldn't be in danger if you got your brain smashed on the pavement, but that's not the case for most people.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
If you're in a fight as an adult you fight to kill and let fly with everything you have. This might be IT.
You want to dance? Take a salsa class.
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
Since when does a teenager need a "good reason" to be walking along the street?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
If Martin had known Zimmerman had a gun, would he have attacked him?
If Martin knew Zimmerman had a gun and feared getting shot in the back, attacking him was even more insane, he would have to close with a man who could whip out a gun in a split second and fill him with lead (WHICH DID NOT HAPPEN).
If Martin did not know Zimmerman had a gun, him attacking him is a clear case of aggression with murderous intent considering the near outcome of the fight as in if Zimmerman had NOT shot Martin, would Martin have stopped beating his victims head into the ground BEFORE he died or after?
To many people assume that because Martin was the one who ended up death, Zimmerman was the only one with murder on the mind that night.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Zimmerman's life was not in danger, and defending yourself is *never* an excuse to harm someone with impunity
We don't know everything about what happened that night. We never will. There are a few things we do know however...
The reason this got to the point it did was because Zimmerman was a jerk, a bigoted loser and a moron. Neither of which are crimes. The trigger situation is that Zimmerman has profiled Martin and is following him around, which is not illegal either. From the evidence we do know that Martin at some point jumped Zimmerman. It seems unlikely he'd do that if facing a gun, so it is quite reasonable to conclude that the illegalities in this matter was instigated by Martin. In other words, it appears that Martin jumped Zimmerman and started to pummel him. A broken nose, a cut to the back of the head etc on Zimmerman seems to be ample evidence for this. Some time after that Zimmerman shoots Martin. He claims self defense. If his head was being hit against something hard, that is reasonable.
So, what are we left with? Have we proven that what Zimmerman says is correct? Not even close. There is no possible way for us to know from the evidence that Zimmerman is telling the truth. That Martin jumped him and he feared for his life. We can not know, and we do not need to. Zimmermans account, and the supporting forensic data is plenty enough to say there is reasonable doubt though. If you say there is no reasonable doubt in this case, you are a moron. If there is reasonable doubt, there is no way the jury can do anything but acquit.
it seems to me that people who find themselves being pursued by strangers are generally assumed by the "justice" system to forfiet their right to life
Hmmm, seems to me like you are cherrypicking here. Please note, I do not know everything that happened that night, and neither do you. Going by only the forensic evidence published in the new rags, it seems your statement above is a little moronic however. If it was the case of Marting being "pursued by a stranger" only, where does Zimmermans broken nose and cuts to the back of the head come from?
Here is the thing: The fact that Martin pummeled Zimmerman means that Zimmermans claim of self defence is a plausible alternative version to the Martin side of the story (which sadly he never got to tell). If there is a plausible alternate explanation that means there is reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt is what is needed to acquit. Zimmerman never had to prove his story to force the jury to acquit, he only had to make it a plausibe explanation. Reasonable doubt it is.
This isn't a damned action movie. If someone is banging your head against the pavement you should have every right to believe your life is in danger.
The justice system ran its course. The protests resulted in a prosecution that never would have happened otherwise. A jury hand picked by the prosecution (6 women, 5 of whom are mothers) was unanimous in deciding the state failed to prove either second degree murder or manslaughter. It HAD to be an acquittal from the beginning because there was no way the Special Prosecutor could prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. And that is the burden the state had to meet. Anything other than an acquittal could only have been explained as people following their emotions and not the rule of law (which saves us from these sometimes). One of our justice system's great weaknesses is actually its greatest strength, it is designed in such a way that it would rather acquit 10,000 guilty men than convict 1 innocent person.
Hang on. The way the law reads, lethal force is allowed if a reasonable person in his position would think that their life is in danger. Zimmerman's head had been banged against the pavement, and in the opinion of one medical witness, one or two more impacts were likely to have killed him.
So, someone taller and younger (and evidently stronger) than you are on top of you and had at least once smacked your head into the pavement. At that point, I contend, a reasonable person would believe that their life was in danger. I would have.
Again, the requirement is that a reasonable person would believe that their life is in danger. They're not required to read the mind of the assailant and discover the assailant's true motives. This means, for instance, that if someone has every appearance of intending to beat you to death, you have a right to use lethal force, regardless of what his actual plans were.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
This just made VERY bad case law.
Effectively Zimmerman baited the kid so he could murder him. He followed police-style rolling up and preventing the kid from leaving, he called the police ahead to plant the alibi, then persued on foot anyway, he didn't put the kid "under citizens arrest" he just attempted to yell at him and physically detain him... Lastly, he didn't announce before trying to detain the kid that he had a gun. And just blew the kid away because he lost a fistfight.
Basically you had a 17YO kid, illegally (or just barrly legal) cornered, prevented from walking away, and threatened by an adult ..attempting to fight his way out of the situation. If the kid was alive, Zimmerman would be wholly at fault.
This just makes extremely bad law. Lets say next time I get cut off in traffic by somebody texting (that's a crime!) i can block their car in at the next rest stop and verbally accost them for their poor decision... I don't even have to call the cops. When they try to escape by swerving at me or pushing my car out of the way, now I can "defend myself" and blow them away! Hell, you can even outright punch people in the face and walk away... If they "presue" then it's "self defense" on your part.
Yea Florida, you can pretty much antagonize a situation out in public right to the limit and as long as they hit on you more, you can blow them away as self defense!!!! Woot!
He needed to go down just to prevent that from becoming legal precedent.