George Zimmerman Acquitted In Death of Trayvon Martin

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

George Zimmerman Acquitted In Death of Trayvon Martin

Posted by timothy on Saturday July 13, 2013 @02:59PM from the you-can-now-stop-submitting-the-news dept.

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."

26 of 1,737 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

I'm amazed... by MasseKid · 2013-07-13 15:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

I'm amazed the Media didn't manage to convict him, despite how hard they tried.
1. Re:I'm amazed... by girlintraining · 2013-07-13 15:18 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I'm amazed the Media didn't manage to convict him, despite how hard they tried.
  Everyone likes to talk about how they'd vote, or what they'd do. The media simply caters to that with show trials and "investigations", showing us distorted and idealized versions of this. It's the same reason why in the middle of a crisis, or when in the presence of a celebrity you'll find plenty of people whipping out their phones, and nobody actually doing anything useful. We feel important when we're around important people... or important events. We try to assure ourselves of our own relevance in whatever situation is placed in front of us. The terrorist attacks on 9/11 didn't directly affect more than a tiny, tiny fraction of the population, but everybody got emotionally involved in it, because it was spectacular, epic, and we wanted to insert ourselves into the story, the conversation, the dialogue. Show trials like this are based on this same emotional need, and the media is only too happy to indulge in it -- it sells more papers, more advertisement, etc.
  But the overwhelming majority of it is total shit, and frankly harmful to our way of life. Whether Zimmerman is guilty or not, he'll never have another job. He'll always be "that guy that got away with murder", irrespective of the actual, judiciary merit of that position. There have been many people, for example, accused of rape, and were later proved not just not guilty, but totally and irrefutably innocent of the charges. Their lives were still over all the same.
  The founding fathers knew this -- that's why they advocated jury trials in the first place. It was an attempt to remove this mob mentality from the judicial process, and as a balance against populism swaying the government and giving in to the transient emotional outbursts of the crowd, the mob, the public. I don't think, if they were alive today in the age of the internet and instant communication, they would still advocate that these trials be open to the public... I believe they would have wanted a person who, if found not guilty, could go back to the life they had and the community would treat them no differently. Conversely, the country was still a "big" place, in terms of social circles -- someone convicted and having served their time, could move somewhere else, start a new life, and leave their mistake(s) behind them. Neither option is possible nowadays...
  Today, our justice system may still beat back the mob mentality and the public's need for vengance, and the corruption of the media, but once a person leaves the system -- guilty or innocent, their lives are irrevocably changed. And rarely is it for the better.
  
  --
  #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
2. Re:I'm amazed... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-13 15:32 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Know how many white people are killed each year by black people? How many robberies? Why does race never come up in any of these crimes, but comes up every time a white person does anything to a black person? (And I'm not white).
3. Re:I'm amazed... by ebno-10db · 2013-07-13 15:43 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The founding fathers knew this -- that's why they advocated jury trials in the first place
  That and the fact that it had been part of the common law for centuries.
  
  I don't think, if they were alive today in the age of the internet and instant communication, they would still advocate that these trials be open to the public
  On the contrary. The reason for requiring that criminal trials be public is to help ensure that they're not totally corrupt.
4. Re:I'm amazed... by fredprado · 2013-07-13 15:45 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Lets see how misguided you were by the news. The woman in question:
  
  - was previously arrested for domestic violence and no complaint was ever registered against her husband.
  - went out of the room and into the garage to get a gun and got back to fire. She didn't run, she didn't lock herself in a room and called the police. And her husband stayed at the room and didn't follow her.
  She fired several shots at arbitrary directions that could not only have hurt her family as could have hurt or killed innocent people in the neighborhood.
  
  No, it wasn't about race or gender, it was just a crazy, violent and irresponsible woman playing the domestic violence card to falsely accuse her husband in the hope of getting a free out-of-jail card. An attempt that fortunately failed.
5. Re:I'm amazed... by Mspangler · 2013-07-13 16:28 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  "We know for a fact that he followed Martin,"
  Stupid mistake #1. Zimmerman got out of the car. If Zimmerman had stayed in the car, then either Martin would have kept walking home, or if he had chosen to attack, would have had to kick in a window to get to Zimmerman, and there would have been no doubt about Zimmerman's self-defense claim.
  Stupid mistake #2. Martin did not just keep walking. If Martin had kept on walking regardless of Zimmerman getting out of the car, Martin would have either gotten home safely, or Zimmerman would have shot him in the back, and there would be no doubt about his guilt.
  What is clear is that at some point, for some reason, Martin turned and attacked. Was he a 17 year old gangster wannabe looking for some street cred, and beating up "a creepy cracker" seemed like a way to get it? Did Zimmerman start yelling out racial slurs, goading Martin beyond the point of reason? We don't know, and there was no evidence either way that could convince the jury. So they were left with reasonable doubt. And if you have reasonable doubt, you are required to acquit.
6. Re:I'm amazed... by adolf · 2013-07-13 16:34 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I've always believed that one should not ever brandish a firearm in a confrontation unless they're prepared to use it to cause harm.
  Warning shot? No. If you think you can fire a warning shot and "scare someone away," then you've still got other less-lethal methods of handling the situation. (And if nothing else, it wastes ammunition.)
  Drawing a firearm is the very last resort. And once you've drawn that weapon weapon, always fire at the person you are in confrontation with (with intent to, you know, actually hit them) -- not in random directions.
  (The reason: If you don't intend to shoot the person, don't be waving a gun around. It isn't safe. A gun is not a threat, nor is it a scare tactic. It's a goddamn killing machine. Either use it properly and swiftly, or leave it alone.)
  
  --
  Kid-proof tablet..
7. Re:I'm amazed... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-13 16:57 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Read the trial transcript, it’ll be clearer. In short:
  1) The defense claimed that Zimmerman was attacked by Martin, and got (more or less) badly beaten. Based on the fact that there were no other wounds on Martin other than the gunshot, and Zimmerman had lots of damage to the head, I tend to believe that. (Of course, I’m not a doctor and I haven’t seen either, I’m just reporting what evidence and testimony was presented during the trial, which is what the jury bases their decision on.) They also claim Martin saw Zimmerman’s gun while beating him, reached for it, and that was when Zimmerman shot him, while being pinned under Martin. Based on what I’ve seen of the trial, I’m pretty sure about the second part; the first is of course convenient, so believe what you will. The prosecution argued that Zimmerman was a wannabe vigilante, and that Martin was an innocent child. If you’re the jury and you believe that, you will not believe Zimmerman. Therefore, it’s relevant to show that Martin was not *just* an innocent child, and in fact was both able and inclined to violence, and from what I’ve heard about the cell’s contents it seems it could be pertinent for the defense. (The phone data wasn’t in the trial, so I can’t judge if in fact it tells anything about Martin. But I can see why it could be relevant.)
  2) I becomes an aggressive act when you assault them, of course. Now, I wasn’t there, and in fact there were no witnesses until after the altercation started, so I can’t tell which of the two attacked. Martin of course cannot testify, and Zimmerman claims he was attacked while returning to the car (which, according to him, he left to find out where Martin was going). Note that the guy was part of the neighborhood watch, and there had been quite a few break-ins in the neighborhood, so it is justifiable to at least investigate where the “suspicious guy” went. (Regardless of why he thought him suspicious.) Of course the evidence is not enough to determine with certainty what went on, but there’s no evidence (that I saw) of lying, either.
  3) No law is required to stand your ground when someone pursues you. (It doesn’t even make sense, if you’re pursued, it means you’re already leaving or running.) That law gives you the right to fight back when attacked. If in fact it was Martin that was attacked, he had right to defend himself. (I assume he wasn’t trespassing, since he was visiting someone in the same neighborhood.) I don’t know for sure who attacked who, but what evidence do you have that Zimmerman initiated the fight?
  * * *
  As I haven’t been there, here’s what I saw in the transcripts. The police received the call from Z. Z told the operator M was leaving, and the operator asked in what direction. (Z claims he left his car to check, lost M in the dark, turned back towards the car, and was assaulted by M by surprise. Which at least is plausible.) Apparently M was talking on the phone with a friend at the time, but other than telling her a “creepy ass cracker” was following him, and that “she thought race was an issue because Martin told her he was being followed by a white man”, which to me sounds like the race issue was the other way around. (Note that the media made a lot of noise about Z telling the operator M was black, when in fact the full recordings show that the operator clearly asked if the guy was white, black or Hispanic. Z did not volunteer that information until asked. And he actually said “He looks black”.)
  About this time several neighbors called 911 because there were screams for help and sounds of struggle. (Each side claimed the screams were theirs, though M’s dad changed his mind a couple of times.) Nobody intervened, but one (male) neighbor saw the scuffle (not very well, *everyone* claims it was dark and I don’t think he got close; he testified that he saw (based on clothin
8. Re:I'm amazed... by Torodung · 2013-07-13 16:59 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Two words explain this attitude historically: "Secret Tribunal." (You can insert the word "military" if you'd prefer three words).
  What would have them spinning at 5000 rpm in their graves is Guantanamo Bay, not this trial and public reaction. A public trial by jury is exactly what they designed, and the country was so small and insular at that point that reputations could be ruined far more thoroughly than in today's overpopulated, urban, and largely faceless culture. They absolutely expected mob mentality to be a result, which was why so many of them were members of secret societies. Privacy to speak one's mind may never have occurred to them as a possibility without that. The possibility of a public trial ruining someone's reputation was probably expected, in my considered opinion.
  I don't have any primary sources to back that up though.
9. Re:I'm amazed... by sumdumass · 2013-07-13 18:02 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Assaulting a person is not really defending yourself unless you have reason to believe you are about to be assaulted yourself.
  The prosecution claimed Zimmerman had a duty to retreat but that same duty applied to Martin too. Martin had a phone, he could have called the police and said someone is following me. He could have tried to lose Zimmerman, but instead, he went to confront the cracker ass cracker or whatever racial slur his friend he was on the phone with said he said before hanging up to put Zimmerman in his place.
  From what I can tell with the court testimony, Martin attacked Zimmerman because he was following him. Martin was never defending himself. It also appears that Martin went out of his way to find Zimmerman and surprise him as Zimmerman lost sight of him just before Martin came from behind. That is all supported by court testimony. Martin simply was not defending himself.
10. Re:I'm amazed... by mi · 2013-07-13 18:45 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I'm not saying there arent issues
  Oh, there most certainly are issues! Because Gitmo was made into such a hot potato during the previous presidency, the current President, evidently, banned putting new detainees in there... Guess, which of the two alternatives to such detentions did he pick? Right, kill them on the spot — no judge, no jury.
  That his supporters, after condemning Bush for the mere detentions, are a-Ok with the extra-judicial killings, is really telling any observer everything one needs to know about their attention spans. That the President is ordering the killings for political expediency (so as not to be blamed for Gitmo's existance much), never mind the possibility, however slight, that a few of them are innocent, is telling the same observer about his values and morals. That he does it despite the intelligence value destroyed by each killing, expands nicely on his priorities.
  To sum up: the "village idiot" and "Constitution-shredder" Bush presided over Milosevic and Hussein being delivered to justice. Harvard-educated lawyer and Nobel Peace Prize-winner Obama presided over bin Laden and Qaddafi shot on the spot...
  
  --
  In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
11. Re:I'm amazed... by Lakitu · 2013-07-13 20:41 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The prosecution claimed Zimmerman had a duty to retreat but that same duty applied to Martin too. Martin had a phone, he could have called the police and said someone is following me. He could have tried to lose Zimmerman, but instead, he went to confront the cracker ass cracker or whatever racial slur his friend he was on the phone with said he said before hanging up to put Zimmerman in his place.
  This is something it seems like most people are missing out on in their rush to polarize.
  Many people are trying to dismiss Zimmerman's duty to retreat by saying it was lawful or he had good intentions or whatever, but the fact is he was following the kid for dubious reasons, got lost, and then was ambushed by the person he was following. He should never have allowed himself to be in that situation, and he should have been prepared for Martin to verbally confront him.
  Lots of people dismiss Martin's actions because they feel like Zimmerman's behavior was unwarranted, starting with following him. But that doesn't excuse his confrontation of Zimmerman.
  The fact is, both of them made dumb mistakes that night, and both of them have paid for it. It will always seem unfair, because Martin was only 17 and, while he should have known better, it's understandable that he didn't know better. And he paid for it with his life.
  Zimmerman's life is changed forever because of this, too, but it will never really seem fair because he's incompetent and an idiot who definitely should have known better and got off light compared to Martin.
  The whole thing is just a tragedy that didn't need to happen.
12. Re:I'm amazed... by erroneus · 2013-07-14 00:22 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I think one thing is coming from this trial and that's the attention black racism has been getting. In watching videos on aftermath, I saw black protesters responding to white people holding signs which read "creepy assed cracker is a racist slur" or something to that effect. The response was screaming out cracker-this and cracker that followed by chanting that they are not racist.
  I think the attention to the matter is and will continue to grow. There is no "making up" for something no one alive today is responsible for. I think it has been amply demonstrated it is behavior which leads to mistrust and even fear among people far more than racial appearance. Of course, bad experiences with a person of a particular genetic lineage, but that is most certainly true on both sides -- Al Sharpton is a dinosaur and a profiteer who sees a racist in every white person and earns a LOT of money from his insistence that there is. But he fails to recognize his own people are the current cause of any fear and mistrust.
  And younger people today? I'm actually a little scared for them at the moment. My son has lots of black friends and he is very, very mixed himself. He trusts his black friends in every way. And that's great. I have met them and most of them are pretty genuine people. (most, but not all) Indeed they think the whole racism issue is ridiculous -- an item for history books. And yet, there is no shortage of violent threats out there. There isn't much noise from the KKK these days, but there is certainly a lot of noise about killing white babies from the new black panther party. These threats are real and they aren't driven by any strong or particular "anti-black" sentiment or activity.
  Seriously, these black racists are scary to me. They, like the US government, are fighting a nebulous war on a vapor enemy.
13. Re:I'm amazed... by modmans2ndcoming · 2013-07-14 03:09 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  1) Constitutional rights have nothing to do with how any of those 4 men were adjudicated.
  2) the local politics of both Melisovic and Hussein were important to the reason to bring them to trial.
  3) Qaddafi was killed by the rebels. The US was no on he ground in Libya or even running air operations (the French were running the show) so Obama has no responsibility there.
  4) Bin Laden? Really? It was a military operation in a hostile zone in a foreign country and everyone has been trying to kill the guy since 9/11. Bush would have killed him too.
14. Re:I'm amazed... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-14 03:53 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  As there more than five times as many whites than blacks in the US, this means a) that blacks are much more likely to become murder victims, and b) that blacks are much more likely to (commit | be convicted of) murder.
15. Re:I'm amazed... by AthanasiusKircher · 2013-07-14 04:54 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  If you read the numbers, it must be pretty close to equal: 49% of murder victims are white, 49% of murder victims are black, and the remaining 2% are of other racial backgrounds. Among murderers, 51% are black, 46% are white, and the remaining 3% are of other racial backgrounds.
  If you're going to quote "actual statistics," you need to know how to use them. These stats are relatively useless when making comparisons between murder rates among races, since they don't take into account the actual population size of various races.
  The white population is roughly 6 times the size of the black population in the U.S. (72.4% vs. 12.6% vs. 15% other). Using these statistics (which admittedly are 2010, instead of 2009, which is the year of your crime stats), we get an estimate of actual rates within the population:
  Out of every 1,000,000 people, 29.4 of them will be white murder victims, 168.4 will be black, and 7.8 will be other. Out of every 1,000,000 people, 23.6 of them will be white murderers, 151.3 will be black, and 5.3 will be other.
  To break this down by victim:
  (Please note that the following stats given much lower rates than above, because BOTH offender and victim race are identified in only about half of the statistics given in the source.)
  If the victim is white, per million people, 13.2 murderers will be white, 2 will be black, and 0.2 will be other.
  If the victim is black, per million people, 5.4 murderers will be white, 66.9 will be black, and 0.3 will be other.
  If the victim is other, per million people, 1.1 will be white, 0.6 will be black, and 2.2 will be other.
  
  That's not to say that murder is OK, but it's hardly a situation in which black people are murdering white people left and right while white people are just innocent victims.
  Agreed. However, when you compare actual murder rates rather than percentages from unequal population sizes, you can actually get an answer to the question you want. Basically, if all races were equally distributed, a black-murdering-white crime is about 2.6 times as likely as a white-murdering-black crime.
  Of course that isn't the real shocking figure here. The shocking figure should be that black-on-black murders are 5 TIMES more prevalent than white-on-white murders. So, the conclusion shouldn't be that blacks are murdering innocent white people, but rather that the murder rate is a lot greater among blacks in general, and when that violence spreads outside the black community, white people are involved somewhat more often... compared to when white violence is perpetrated on blacks.
  (I'm not trying to make any sort of racial judgment here at all, just to interpret the statistics you quoted fairly. Honestly, all murders are terrible, and we need to work to curb all of this violence... regardless of the races of victim or perpetrator.)
How many people are surprised at this verdict? by I'm+New+Around+Here · 2013-07-13 15:02 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
Re:Is this a hopeless request? by nadaou · 2013-07-13 15:08 · Score: 5, Insightful

> 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.
Due Process by nebrfan · 2013-07-13 15:09 · Score: 5, Insightful

It's better to let a guilty man go free then to put an innocent man behind bars.
1. Re:Due Process by tftp · 2013-07-13 15:47 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  IMO, GZ was only guilty of pushing his luck. While laws permit a non-LEO person to patrol territory and talk to people, this is not all that wise - GZ presented lots of evidence to that; it may be that his ordeal is not over yet, unless he leaves for Peru on the first airplane.
  A LEO in the same position wouldn't need to explain why he was there, following potential burglars - it's his job. A LEO would be in real time radio contact with his partners and managers. A LEO would not need to shoot because he'd never allow a suspect to come behind him and so close. If it came down to blows, a LEO would be strong enough to defeat TM without killing him; an LEO carries a baton, and Taser, and handcuffs, and pepper spray in addition to the firearm. On top of that, any aggression of TM against the LEO would be illegal, short of some major violation of TM's civil rights.
  This means that GZ should have left the policing to the police officers. They are better prepared, and their hands are less tied, and if they do kill a perp then they, barring an obvious crime, won't be facing the DA. This is the only thing, IMO, that GZ did wrong. Perhaps that gun under his belt made GZ feel protected, invulnerable. Such feelings are known to occur. An unarmed man will seek to avoid confrontation; an armed one may just barge in and have it all - just as this case illustrates.
  This means that if you carry a firearm, your duty to avoid conflicts only gets stronger because it can easily escalate into a homicide. If you are wise and logical, like Spock, you may do good if you carry; but at every point make sure that your actions are not only legal, but also safe. For example, do not leave your car to go where you don't really belong (after strangers who, in your own opinion, are on drugs and up to no good.) However if a criminal tries to carjack you, or to break into your home, a gun will help because in these situations you have no other options - neither short term, nor long term.
  Some lament that bad boyz need to be shot and killed by vigilantes, as it was common a few centuries ago. But the fact of life is that the laws do not permit that. The laws explicitly say that you shall fear criminals, and you shall avoid them. In some way it is wise because you do not know who is and who isn't a criminal. Only when someone breaks into your home you could be reasonably safe; but still check - it could be SWAT, after having house numbers mixed up again. The cost of shooting a person is very high; one might say that after shooting someone you might just as well shoot yourself, all things considered. GZ was this far ->.<- from getting an effective death sentence.
Re:Lost. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-13 15:12 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
Presumption of Innocence by Bob9113 · 2013-07-13 15:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

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
Re:Lost. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-13 15:41 · Score: 5, Insightful

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?
Not all show trials go the way the media by Shivetya · 2013-07-13 15:50 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
Re:not surprised at racism and naive WASPs by sumdumass · 2013-07-13 17:39 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
Re:not 'self defense' by jcr · 2013-07-13 18:34 · Score: 5, Insightful

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."