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.
People coming from different backgrounds bring different perspectives to the Trayvon Martin shooting. Everyone feels they are right, and everyone feels strongly. Is it possible for commenters to keep that in mind? I see an early post opportunity, so I figure I'll offer the proposal.
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.
Does anyone know if the result was related to the "Stand Your Ground" law? I'm having trouble finding a good answer.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
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
The whole hinged on the who was the aggressor, who through the first punch. The prosecution never proved a scenario where George was the aggressor. Case closed.
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.
He who has the gun, is automatically guilty regardless of the facts.
Fixed that for you.
What the fuck facts are you referring to? The facts are that he was a neighborhood watch volunteer who ignored the 911 dispatcher and chased down a kid because he thought he "looked suspicious". He then killed a kid who was armed with only a bag of skittles. If he would have followed the dispatcher's advice and waited for actual law enforcement - rather than taking on the role himself - that kid would still be alive.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Justice was served an innocent man was set free.
Following someone is not a crime. Attacking someone is, however. In fact, it's a good way to get yourself shot.
Um no. Just do a little reading and see what it takes to convict a person of second degree murder "beyond a shadow of a doubt". You're the "lost cause".
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
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
The police are already much more heavily armed than any regular person could ever hope to be. Your paranoid fears have not come to fruition, by and large.
I don't respond to AC's.
Is there some kind of tech issue that makes this relevant to Slashdot? It's bad enough that the trial took over CNN and ever political blog on the planet, but Slashdot now? Was Zimmerman an open-source advocate or something?
Here is an IT angle
Look just two stories down or so on the main, page, that's already on Slashdot.
That's what is really vexing me, the only possible technical link is already present and under heavy discussion (though of course it devolved into mindless bickering immediately). So we did NOT need this new story that it merely here to let people bitch one way or the other.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Apparently, not yet - NAACP tweets:
"BREAKING: Zimmerman acquitted on all charges.We will update you as we work to pursue civil rights charges against Zimmerman through the DOJ."
NAACP Is 'Outraged And Heartbroken,' And Will Pursue 'Civil Rights Charges' Against George Zimmerman
C'mon - you didn't seriously think Zimmerman was going to walk unscathed, did you?
American Third Position
Finally, a real choice!
Still seems like an f'd up situation. It's plausible to me that Martin was defending himself from the armed stranger following him, and then Zimmerman was defending himself from the situation he himself created. I don't feel much sympathy for Zimmerman and it seems shocking that there wasn't anything else he could have been tried and convicted on. He's innocent of the charges brought, but I don't find him innocent or blameless in this matter.
If you followed any law blogs that actually watched the trial, they seemed to generally agree the state had a very weak case at best, and the witnesses they called often help the defendant far more than the prosecution. So its not surprise he was acquitted.
George Zimmerman Acquitted In Death of Trayvon Martin
Whistleblowing IT Director Fired By FL State Attorney
Skype Overload Interrupts Zimmerman Trial
Judge Rules Defense Can Use Trayvon Martin Tweets
Zimmerman Charged With 2nd-Degree Murder
NBC Apologizes For Editing Zimmerman 911 Call
Forensic Experts Say Screams Were Not Zimmerman's
I'll tell you what bothered me most about this trial. There's a reason that Zimmerman went free immediately, and no charges were pressed. The evidence backed his story. It was obvious to all those investigating and the DA, etc, that it was a case of self defense. It wasn't because of a bunch of racist law enforcement officers or prosecutors that tried to sweep it under the rug or somehow distort the facts that Zimmerman wasn't charged. The media and politicians decided to make it into something else. Pictures of a smiling 12 year old Martin were shown continuously by the media. Obama said it "could have been my son" that was killed. Special prosecutors were brought in to try and make something happen. When these prosecutors rested their case, then tried to get anything to stick (homicide, even "child abuse") the underlying desperation and total lack of a case was made even more apparent.
It ticks me off that Martin was exploited by news organizations and politicians to make some sort of cause to rally behind or push agendas.
Better known as 318230.
I'm not aware of a law against it.
Power yes, right no.
Sadly the same thing seems to apply to the police.
In a few years?
Seriously, technology and the ubiquitous nature of social media and electronic communications means pretty much anything newsworthy has a technological component to it.
I agree that this case is something you'd put in a broad category of "general news", but there's probably some interesting science behind the analysis of the events that unfolded, at the very least? But perhaps more relevant to the Slashdot crowd, we've all been exposed to a pretty wide variety of opinions on the case thanks to being online.
In a time not that long ago, you'd watch the nightly news to learn about a shooting incident like this, and your concept of "how people felt about it" was probably based on what your immediate family said, what your good friends said, and some random comments from co-workers or fellow students. Now, you get on Facebook or what-not and you're easily able to skim hundreds or thousands of opinions about it, coming from all ages, both genders, and multiple ethnic and economic groups.
To me, that's kind of an amazing thing. It may not change the outcome, but hopefully it enlightens more people. If nothing else, this case made me think a little bit deeper about the whole "stand your ground" concept and where it could become a murky, grey area if one hoped to use it as a defense in a life-threatening situation. In a more general sense, it reminded me of how many people draw conclusions based on details that really are just extraneous noise when trying to determine guilt of a specific crime. (By that, I'm talking about both sides .... everything from Martin's alleged marijuana usage, "thug" lifestyle and theories of why he was carrying the bag of Skittles to assumptions of Zimmerman's character based on his ethnicity, choice to act in a role of a security type person for the neighborhood, and so on.)
A criminal trial should be based purely on the evidence and facts ... not painting subjective pictures of the types of people involved. But obviously, the news media realizes all of that gets "eyeballs" of more viewers and drums up more interest and emotions so the outcome of the case will be followed more closely.
As all of us contribute to the rapid-fire dissemination of information through technology and computers, I hope we keep all of this in mind.
...am looking forward to some cheap stereos and other 'grey market' items for the next six months, after the inevitable riots.
-Styopa
oh, poor George got punched! The real fact is that if there were no guns at the scene, GZ would've gotten a beating and both men would still be alive.
Maybe they'll give him George Zimmer's job and spin it as the suit helped get him acquitted :)
I'm sure it'd synergise well with the new direction the company is heading in.
(A) This is under YRO, which has not been strictly 'News for nerds' for as long as I've been a registered user.
(B) This was the first practical test of FL's stand-your-ground law, so it does fall under the category 'Stuff that matters'
(C) Timothy only posted it, which I infer to be at the behest of a lot of other users who felt that it was either NFN and/or STM
Posted by timothy on Saturday July 13, 2013 @09:59PM
from the you-can-now-stop-submitting-the-news dept.
The only surefire protection against Microsoft infections is abstinence. - The Onion
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
Why yes, yes you could. Nothing illegal about following somebody- male or female. Might creep them out a little, but you are totally within your rights. Heck,what if I thought she had nice legs and just wanted to admire them for a few minutes.... is that a crime?
Everything above is my opinion....YMMV
Ever think that Marin was acting out in self-defense?
I tend to avoid people when walking after dark. if someone did start following me, I would find my way to a safer haven. Other people would act agressively, arguably in self-defense. You know, like Zimmerman was claiming to do even though he was the stalker.
:(... but where will you go to read daily stories about Bitcoin?
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 same DOJ that sent representatives to help organize anti-Zimmerman protests? http://www.judicialwatch.org./press-room/press-releases/documents-obtained-by-judicial-watch-detail-role-of-justice-department-in-organizing-trayvon-martin-protests/
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
You don't know that. Plenty of people die in fights every year and thug idiots beat people to death fairly regularly in the U.S. and the U.K. If you don't want to get shot, don't attack other people.
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.
The facts that Zimmerman was only acting in self defense. You know, the facts that the jury used to serve justice.
Juries don't find people innocent. They find them guilty or not guilty. The latter means that the defendant could not be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It does not necessarily mean they thought he was innocent.
But it's worth pointing out that we still outnumber them by quite a bit.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
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.
Provided the weapon is concealed, then yes. If you're brandishing the weapon - that's something else entirely.
You should note that Zimmerman was not following Martin with his gun out. Martin didn't even know he had a gun until he attacked Zimmerman, or so the story goes.
Beyond that: You'd have to know some of the laws regarding a CCW to have a CCW. Walking around with a brandished firearm will almost universally get you in some serious trouble. (I don't know the laws in Florida, etc.) The ONLY time the gun comes out is if you are literally willing to kill someone. Because if you're not willing to kill them and they are also armed, then you've escalated it and one of you is likely to die. It's very bad news, and they're pretty specific about how these situations are supposed to be handled.
I should also clarify that last part - there is more to it than being willing to kill. You have to be in danger of seriously bodily harm or death. Someone is on top of you beating the crap out of you - that's probably going to qualify. Again...the whole damn thing is unfortunate, but the story holds up.
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!
oh, poor George got punched! The real fact is that if there were no guns at the scene, GZ would've gotten a beating and both men would still be alive.
The age of taking a beating and chalking it up to experience died half a century ago. Now, we have a sociery where you can HAND someone a beating...and then sue them for making your fists hurt.
I should also clarify that I shouldn't have to clarify that last part. I'm just trying to prevent the obvious onslaught of crazy arguments that people are going to make against me unless I spell it out in painful detail, rather than trying to understand what I meant. :/
(A) YRO is an initialism for 'your rights online'. This has nothing to do with your rights, nor is it online.
YRO may be an acronym for that, but clearly you haven't been paying attention to how it's actually been applied over the past 15 years, which as I stipulated, has not been 'News for nerds.'
(B) It does not fall under the category 'Stuff that matters'. Perhaps a fraction of the Florida populace care about it, but it absolutely is an irrelevancy.
Clearly the people who submitted it feel differently and...
(C) Timothy posted it, hence it was Timothy who held the hammer in his hand and proceeded to drive in that last nail. Fuck Timothy, fuck Slashdot, and fuck irrelevant cap like this.
...timothy agrees with them. He's an editor. Determining what and what does not matter to the majority of his readers by his judgement is specifically what he is hired to do. And if you don't like his editorial choices, you don't have to read them. Seriously. You can go under settings, click the exclusions tab, and filter out his posts entirely. Or filter out topics you don't want to read about, like say, the Zimmerman trial. Or, as you seem inclined to do, stop reading /. entirely. No one is going to miss your pissant whining.
The only surefire protection against Microsoft infections is abstinence. - The Onion
If you talk yourself into a bar brawl, even if you didn't throw the first punch, you're going to jail. If you follow someone when the police told you not to follow, and carry a gun when the neighborhood watch group -- that's supposedly the reason you're doing this -- told you not to, and then you get into an altercation with the person you're following and end up killing them, you should be going to prison for a significant length of time. Creating a dangerous situation and then claiming self-defense isn't valid.
Thankfully, at least Zimmerman will end up an even poorer version of O.J. He might get some money from Fox News or another conservative outfit for a little while, but everyone knows who he is and what he did.
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!
This is the internet, man. Everyone's gotta have an opinion... and worse, they're only a click away from putting it on the screens of thousands. Your advice is falling on deaf ears. Hey look everyone -- a single mother! (grabs pitchfork and runs out of the comment thread)
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
The police are already much more heavily armed than any regular person could ever hope to be.
You must not live in Arizona, Texas, or Montana.
"Once we've identified and embraced our sickness, we'll have strength...and that's when we get dangerous." - John Waters
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
http://xkcd.com/386/
News for geeks. We know about Google News, or any other mainstream news outlet for that matter....
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
Only if the was black, and you weren't
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.
I fail to see where I ever mentioned that the jury found anyone "innocent".
If it was a "fact that Zimmerman was only acting in self defense" it would mean that he was innocent. The jury didn't say that. Their not guilty verdict just means they couldn't find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Learn to read.
Learn that a word can be used to accurately describe an argument, even if that word was not used verbatim in the original statement of the argument.
For one, I'm surprised they were able to find enough people in that entire state who were able to count to 6 and hadn't already formed an opinion on this case (of course, the jury will be forever out on that matter).
However, equally important here is that the prosecution was a product of the state. The state had little interest in actually pursuing justice in this matter as they would have a huge problem on there hands if a criminal case were to lead to questioning of the stand your ground law. The state presented a case only because a crime was committed, however they were not obligated to do a competent job of presenting that case. They did such a half-assed job on this that Zimmerman could have been represented by Ronald McDonald and still would have been acquitted in that state.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
If you don't want to get "attacked", don't chase people down for no fucking reason.
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
he will move far away and change his name.. and he just may be able to avoid a life of hell. Honestly the media was such a mess in this case i have no idea if this was a justifiable or not. A lot of the reporting on both sides did't pass the smell test..
But we can comment on the news here. But we could all go to reddit as well, and do the same thing.
I think I'd like a tech news site that was entirely about tech, where I can post comments using my experience with technology.
I don't have any experience with racism or murder or courts. Most of the armchair lawyers here are interested in law as it related to technology, patents and copyright.
The handful of /.'s living in the South that want to move out? be my guest. California, Seattle and Austin all seem pretty nice. Less mosquitos than Florida too.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
boohoo, you wont be missed
What other people think of me is none of my business
If you talk yourself into a bar brawl, even if you didn't throw the first punch, you're going to jail.
Actually, you MIGHT get misdemeanor harassment at most. Seriously...I can talk crap in a bar all night long and you have no justification to physically attack me.
If you follow someone when the police told you not to follow, and carry a gun when the neighborhood watch group -- that's supposedly the reason you're doing this -- told you not to, and then you get into an altercation with the person you're following and end up killing them, you should be going to prison for a significant length of time. Creating a dangerous situation and then claiming self-defense isn't valid.
First - no police officer ever told him not to follow. Get that through your head. A 911 operator is not a cop. You're not legally obligated to do exactly what they tell you.
The neighborhood watch is also not a law enforcement agency. They don't have the ability to remove your right to (legally) carry a firearm. They don't want you to, but again - there is what you should do, and what you can legally do. Concern yourself with the LEGAL part here.
If you get into an altercation with the person and they initiated a physical attack...they are legally in the wrong. If they don't like that you're following them (which is legal) then they should probably tell you to back off. If you persist in following them when they've made it known they want you to stay back...then you're opening yourself up to harassment charges, or something along those lines. Following them is at no point a justification to start beating the crap out of them. Also...pinning them so they can't escape is pretty stupid, because if they were armed and they were getting physically beaten, and they had no real means of escape, you've got a recipe for getting shot.
Both did stupid things, but as far as anyone can tell - one of them was operating within the law, no matter how much some people might dislike that.
Thankfully, at least Zimmerman will end up an even poorer version of O.J. He might get some money from Fox News or another conservative outfit for a little while, but everyone knows who he is and what he did.
Doubtful on all counts. He has a pretty solid case against NBC and might be able to get a healthy settlement there. Seriously...the doctoring NBC did on some of the audio to make him sound guilty was pretty appalling. (Well...that and showing pictures of the kid as a 12 year old, so everyone thinks he cold-blooded killed a small child, etc.)
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 ^.^~!
I'm not aware of a law against it.
Zimmerman was from the neighborhood WATCH. As far as I ever heard, there was no sanctioned neighborhood pursue, harrass, and shoot group. He was entrusted to report suspicious activity to the police and was asked to stand down to wait for the police to show up. Instead he decided to pull out his weapon and chase down the kid. Zimmerman was not law enforcement, he escalated a situation that didn't even exist until he showed up.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
"The real fact is that if there were no guns at the scene, GZ would've gotten a beating and both men would still be alive."
Martin would still be alive. Zimmerman might be alive, dead, or permanently brain damaged. A skull can only take so many impacts on concrete.
So the black woman on the jury was a closet racist? How did that help Zimmerman?
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Your advice might keep someone out of prison.
I've seen cases where the Defendent gets false confidence b/c of a great performance from his attorney and good non-verbal feedback from the jury only to be sent away b/c of exactly what you describe.
Sometimes, the judges are just morons who behave essentially as librarians or middle managers and they just give the bare minimum of instructions (basically what they are told).
Also, State law can sometimes *mandate* the judge read a form of instructions.
We think of the courts as a safety valve to overrule democracy when it gets crazy, but really they are subject to the will of the people just the same, only usually on a longer timeline...you can't just fire a judge for incompetence.
Thank you Dave Raggett
He is innocent.
That was in response to a specific, preceding question. Read that question, maaan.
That jury was fully of closet racist middle class women.
I'd make a statement here wondering how on earth you could possibly know the possible racist leanings of a bunch of people whose names you don't know and have never even seen, but I have to admit, I suppose we've finally found an area in which a basement dweller staring at screen all day and night reading internet posts has the best experience in that sort of judgement.
it's a good way to get yourself shot
I was wondering when someone was going to say that. Anyone that takes the effort to follow me home is a threat to me and my home. Anyone with a gun following me home is a deadly threat.
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
YRO is indeed an acronym for that, and it has been progressively bastardized over the past 15 years. If you're cool with that, fine. I am not.
Clearly your approach of bitching anonymously about it has yielded the results you're looking for. It's YRO, I know what YRO is used for in actuality, and I'll decide whether or not to read a YRO article based on my mood.
Clearly the people who submitted it are fucking idiots and...Timothy is a fucking idiot too.
Demonstrate this. Seriously, provide actual facts to prove that these people have an IQ between 0 and 25. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they're stupid; it means that if you have to resort to calling them stupid that you're either unwilling or incapable of having a civilized conversation.
I am indeed inclined to stop reading /. entirely, and I do not anticipate missing your pissant whining.
Good. Fuck off.
The only surefire protection against Microsoft infections is abstinence. - The Onion
Well, since you put it that way...attacking them would be a great idea!
You do not know that. He could have been paralyzed or killed. You might think that is not very likely, but unarmed people are paralyzed and killed by unarmed people all the time.
All those favoring the prosecution say Trayvon Martin was "innocent."
George Zimmerman (correctly) profiled the black punk as a burglar. He was determined not to let this burglar walk through his neighborhood without following him and making him uncomfortable.
Q: Why do I say the profiling was correct?
A1: Trayvon Martin was arrested for possession of burglary tools.
A2: Trayvon Martin was kicked out of high school when thousands of dollars of stolen jewelry was found in his locker. He said it was costume jewelry he was going to give to his girlfriend. He did not deny it was his - he admitted it was his, so nobody else put it in his locker. The jewelry was positively identified as having been stolen from houses within a few blocks of his high school.
Anybody who burglarizes a bunch of houses deserves to be profiled and stalked. Trayvon Martin got what he deserved.
Sic semper burgatoribus.
Now to bankrupt certain media outlets, and then to put them in prison for inciting violence when our hero, George Zimmerman, is murdered by another black burglar.
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.
Actually, a red herring. Nowhere in the civilized world is the criterion for murder "proved guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt". It is "proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt". They are entirely different things.
You're absolutely right. I would correct the error if I could.
The only surefire protection against Microsoft infections is abstinence. - The Onion
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.
In a few years? That shit happens all the time.
Like this one example out of thousands:
https://www.courthousenews.com/2013/07/03/59061.htm
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
wrong man...seriously from experience you're wrong about the whole thing
This isn't a geometry proof, this is human behavior. Your analysis is exactly the kind of disconnected, isolated thinking that squirmy defense attorney's play to.
You're falling for used-car salesman level B.S.
Forget 'Stand your ground' and your interpretations of what you think a jury would do and all that and look at this at a simple human level.
Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon. He admitted it. That's guilt unless...
Self defense.
Was Zimmerman's life in danger?
If you answer 'yes' or 'a reasonable person might think so' then you're still looking at it with half of your brain.
Given the circumstances which were well reported, no matter who was 'on top' or had weed in their system or was a 'racist'...Zimmerman's life was **not in danger**
Just because he might be sub-moronic enough to somehow think his life was in danger, or because jurors are more easily manipulated in 2013 has no bearing. We are talking about if he should be guilty, not what we think others will/could/should decide. We are deciding here in this discussion.
He definitely shot and killed Trayvon and self-defense is no defense.
Thank you Dave Raggett
So the black woman on the jury was a closet racist? How did that help Zimmerman?
There was no black woman on the jury. The six person jury was made up of five white women and one Hispanic woman.
So how that "stop reading /." thing going for you?
The only surefire protection against Microsoft infections is abstinence. - The Onion
Assumes facts not in evidence.
oh, you were in Zimmerman's brain that day?
A murderer, no. Trayvon escalated; he jumped on the guy thinking he could take him. He was wrong.
I want *every* thug in this nation, white, black, latino, etc, wondering if the next guy they fuck with is packing. Most of us with CCW permits train our ass off, I did in the military and I do now. I will empty a mag into any asshole or group of assholes who try to do me harm so fast that they won't have hit the ground before I'm done (which is why I like training triple and quad taps instead of the Mozambique Drill. Deal with it, prick.
And if you think gun laws are going to tighten, wake the fuck up. We (the gun owners) won after Connecticut and we'll win again. Add in the fact that Obama is losing the support of his base (I'm actually a moderate Dem) and you've got nothing. No retreat law? Well kid, if a sixty year old man is waiting for the bus, no, he shouldn't have a 'duty to retreat'.
God made men; Sam Colt made them equal.
In a residential neighborhood? With witnesses nearby and everything?
No...you probably won't. I won't know you have a gun in that situation, and you wouldn't know if I do either - lets just get that spelled out up front. People aren't walking around with a brandished firearm. It's not the wild wild west, and that is HIGHLY illegal. Take a CCW course and learn about how this stuff goes down.
If you randomly draw your weapon and shoot me, then there is no evidence of a fight. They'll know from the wounds about where we were standing when it happened, and they'll see the angle of the shot, etc. Then you'll get convicted and possibly get a new boyfriend in prison. (Which is appalling if it's non-consensual. If it is consensual - hey man...whatever floats your boat.) Seriously...you can't just do that. It'll likely end very poorly for you.
Since things probably won't go down like that, I'm probably going to interact with you in a reasonable way. You'll ask me what I'm doing there, and I'll tell you that I live with my parents at this house over here, and go on inform you that you should probably go fornicate with yourself. No weapons will be drawn, and you'll probably have hurt feelings and look pretty stupid when the cops show up. Either way...how are you going to attempt to stop me from leaving? Are you implying you're going to start waving a gun around or you'll grab me? Or will I just walk to the house that I live in and go inside while the crazy neighborhood watchman waits for the police....yeah...think I'll do that. In fact, I think I'll call them myself because that guy's a bit cray.
It MIGHT go differently if I was an overly aggressive idiot who wanted to start a fight though. Sure...I'd know it's against the law, but seriously...I'm a tough guy, so the laws don't apply to me.
Anyways...good luck with your dream scenario. And make sure you take that CCW course so you know how the laws work with that.
Great! I can't wait for you to not read many more!
The only surefire protection against Microsoft infections is abstinence. - The Onion
right, everyone knows that blacks should just say yes massa when someone like you stalks them.
you mean don't get uppity when someone whiter than you tries stalking you in order to pretend that he is some fraction of a man, don't you?
A murderer, no. Trayvon escalated; he jumped on the guy thinking he could take him. He was wrong.
Maybe so but did George Zimmerman have any good reason to get out of his vehicle in the first place? If I thought I was being stalked by someone I might try to jump them too.
Well, so long then.
The only surefire protection against Microsoft infections is abstinence. - The Onion
Burn, Baby, Burn!
Seastead this.
Is "uppity" a synonym for conducting a life endangering assault? After all, that is what Martin did - there is plenty of evidence of it, including medical and forensic evidence.
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.
No, you hang up first, silly!
The only surefire protection against Microsoft infections is abstinence. - The Onion
If the husband was a threat she should have shot him.
The proper response to Zimmerman's acquittal is relief that the jury decided based on the facts; there was simply no other decision they could have reached if they did their job.
"Middle class white people" are just getting pissed off at being being lumped together and insulted based on their race and class. That makes you the racist.
n/t
Thank you Dave Raggett
...one "benefit of the doubt" (presumption of innocence) had to be handed out in this trial regardless of facts, and in our legal system the recipient must be the person on trial (e.g. the survivor of the conflict).
What this translates to on the streets of Florida is anyone's guess, but 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.
Getting followed by a creepy guy does not give you the right to beat him down. Being just or unjustly followed does not matter. When you beat down a person you give him the legal right to self defense.
Zimmerman didn't do much wrong, he followed someone who looked/acted kinda suspicious. Maybe didn't do enough to avoid a fight. Then probably panicked while someone was on top of him punching him in the head.
Martin freaked out and got pissed off at a guy who was following him when he hadn't done anything wrong. Then ended up laying a bit of a beating on him.
Martin probably deserved a misdemeanor while Zimmerman a bloody nose and a talking to about avoiding confrontations.
Toss in a gun and you have a dead body and a ruined life.
I stole this Sig
Which would land you in jail for assault at minimum.
I think it's time for FL Attorney General Pam Bondi Office of Inspector General to do a full audit of that State Attorney office on any evidence that office refused to turn over related to all convictions coming out of that office. The shadow of doubt has been created by this fiasco that vital information was fully with coming from this office may not have been dutifully met in other cases that concluded with convictions. Never mind Zimmerman case, this is about a public office doing the right thing, every time as professional attorneys for the People. Incompetence and vindictive nature of this particular State Attorney's office is a clear sign that there must be audited for the good of the People.
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
The "Stand your ground law" isn't really a factor when someone jumps you, pounds your head against the cement, is on top of you and reaches for a gun, even your gun. And if you're ever in that situation and waste time considering if it does, then you will likely not survive. This was clear cut self-defense, as the evidence showed.
Other evidence showed it was racially motivated. The guy's own girlfriend testified that he called Zimmerman a "cracker" before the attack. And the judge excluded evidence of his interest in violence and attacking people, but anyone paying attention outside the jury caught that.
The cops didn't even want to arrest Zimmerman, they investigated and knew enough about what happened to understand he shouldn't be charged with a crime. He was only charged after a lot of blacks fired up the black community to send a message to other black youths that it is alright to attack and try to kill a "cracker", and if he defends himself we can get him arrested.
Gotta go now and research just what that information was that the D.A. illegally hid from the defense. That alone pretty much should tell you this wasn't a attempt to get justice, it was an attempt to convict an innocent man who was attacked.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
was Zimmerman's life in danger?
that's the question...who was 'on top' and if either was a racist is immaterial to his guilt
answer my question, was Zimmerman's life under threat?
i'd like to hear your answer...based on reported facts...you don't have to link to everything I've been up on the trial...answer my question if you'd like to talk further
Thank you Dave Raggett
According to Godwin's law, we are still missing a "Hitler" word.
So here it is.
*The right to defend your own life should not include the right to end another person's life.*
That ranks right up there with the all time stupidest statements ever.
So if someone decides to kill me, I'm just supposed to beg for mercy? I don't beg. Kung-fu them with my 65 year old body? Hardly. Run away? I'm slow as a turtle.
Sorry, no. I won't let someone else kill me. End of story. The right of self-defense up to and including lethal force is a well-established legal principle whether you like it or not. Get used to it.
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."
Which means he can get another gun. I'll bet he has one by tomorrow and that the people around him do too. The "black guys" as you put it will get a bullet in the chest just like Martin did but there won't need to be a trial since it will be obvious self defense.
Interestingly enough, all the "black guys" have to do is provoke him into reaching for his gun, and they can then use the "stand your ground" law to shoot him and get away with it.
Assuming Florida applies their ingenious law in a race-neutral manner, of course -- hahahaha.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
his white wannabe thoughts got the better of him
I've got to say, this statement right here sounds more racist than anything I heard coming from Zimmerman.
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.
You know who else wanted a final solution to this thread?
Huh, it seems I have nothing to add but posted anyway.
SLASHDOT FOREVER!
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
Miscarriages of justice such as this one are a direct result of the fundamentally flawed system of jury trial and of flawed legislation.
Jurors are laymen and as such not suited for something as complicated as a criminal case and they are by definition susceptible to suggestion. A civil or criminal case brought before the court should always be handled by one ore more judges, people who are trained to be objective and to weigh the evidence, not by laymen.
And on the Eighth Day, Man created God.
Nope. You might think Zimmerman was a wannbe cop and on a power trip. You still don't get to attack him physically because he's being a dumbass.
Both of them did just about everything wrong, but the cake goes to Martin for turning a stalking into a brawl. None of the evidence in trial shows that Zimmerman did anything but follow Martin, and he even lost him at one point. Martin attacked him, and in the scuffle was killed. Perhaps the situation was initiated by Zimmerman following, but people follow other people every day without it turning into bloody brawls.
The lesson here is you don't attack people, period. If Martin walked away, or even verbally asked the guy why he was following him, this would not have happened. There is nothing in the evidence to suggest that Zimmerman initiated a physical confrontation.
In the end, there is zero evidence that Zimmerman was in any way racist, but he could have been an Imperial Wizard of the KKK and if he had been bull rushed by the person he was following, that racist would have been fighting in self-defense.
Assuming Florida applies their ingenious law in a race-neutral manner, of course -- hahahaha.
Oh, totally:
Mom sentences to 20 years for firing warning shots at abusive ex who was violating a peace bond.
Huh, I guess Florida just plain doesn't like black people.
---
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."
Trevor Martin:
- Kicked out his mothers house for violent behavior.
- Numerous violent incidents at school.
- Posing as wanna-be hoodlum.
George Zimmerman:
911 operators are NOT police officers and can't give orders.
911 operator did NOT order, just said Zimmerman did not need to continue to follow.
Zimmerman did NOT continue to follow as was proven in the case BY THE PROSECUTION!
You are a typical anon, ill informed and down right lying.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
And everybody knows, such power-tripping racists have no right to defend themselves...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
You must have your own facts, then... According to evidence presented at trial, Zimmerman had wounds consistent with both being punched in the face and being hit against the pavement.
That's certainly enough to fear death or serious injury.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
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.
Still pending from the Holder DoJ are charges of jaywalking and removing the tags off mattresses. If they have to do double, triple, or quadruple jeaopardy they'll get him somehow. So much for the rule of law. My advice to Zimmerman is to get the hell out of the US.
Why do people keep forgetting this happened in a gated community, in which BOTH lived?
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Zimmerman was the one on the ground as testified to by both witnesses and forensic investigators.
I have seen some people try to bend the truth but you break it then throw away half the pieces.
What is your agenda?
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
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.
As opposed to now, when we can have guns and they trample all over our rights and do whatever they want. . . .?
I agree, but remember, both these men lived in gated communities. I have very strong feelings about gated communities. They talk to me about people who would rather pay a thousand in gates and wannabe cops rather then spend a 100 in extra taxes for real cops. Real cops are not perfect mostly because people don't want to pay for proper ones (would you take a cop salary?) but they are better then armed civilians trying to keep out wanna-be thugs especially when those wanna-be thugs are living in the same community.
Either side could have walked away that night but the real fight started far far earlier, when Travor was getting violent at school and Zimmerman was no longer willing to wait for an underfunded justice system to stop crime on his turf.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
I'm not sure I get the point. He should have been willing to take a beating rather than fend off someone attempting to give a beating? How far do we extend that? If you just lay back and take the raping, rather than shooting the rapist, your vagina will be pretty sore, but at least you'll both still be alive?
Since when does a teenager need a "good reason" to be walking along the street?
You're absolutely right, Zimmerman is definitely guilty of the charge of "following some guy." That's not illegal though, nor could it be considered assault.
Oh dear. You missed a perfectly good opportunity to Godwin the thread.
Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
However, in American law you are innocent until proven guilty. Therefore, if you are not proven guilty, you are innocent.
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.
This is essentially how I feel. He could have watched from a distance and called the police and then intervened if he witnessed a crime being committed or just about to be. It seems clear that this was the right verdict *and* Zimmerman is still probably a douche.
Zimmerman and Travor BOTH choose to live in a gated community.
Don't whine about being stopped in the street by the security guard you yourself appointed.
If this had happened outside the gates, I would have felt different BUT this happened in a gated community and in such a place, you have to live by whatever rules that community sets because that is why gates are around it. Don't live in a gated community if you don't want to stopped by your neighbors.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
I dunno . . . I got in a lot of fights in grade school and high school. I never started them and preferred to avoid them, every time. However, being a serious athlete my entire young life (training and competing 40hrs a week), I never lost a fight. As a result, I was always in detention or being suspended and being chastised. Not for starting a fight -- but for finishing it. If I had just not fought back and had just let people pummel me (in some instances, multiple people at a time), I would have been seen as the victim and not punished.
It seems, to me, that is also how the justice system (and media) often see things, too.
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.
They don't even have to do that. They just have to SAY he was reaching for his gun. And then kill him so there are no witnesses to contradict them.
Criminal and Civil law carry different requirements for proof:
Criminal: Beyond a reasonable doubt. Burden of proof is always on the state.
Civil: Preponderance of evidence. The burden of proof falls on the plaintiff. One must produce evidence beyond the balance of probabilities.
Criminally, you can be found not guilty because there is reasonable doubt that you committed a crime. You can then be found guilty and punished accordingly in a civil suit, because it is found just slightly more likely that you committed the crime than that you did not.
Why don't you Americans grow the f'up already? There is only one race, the human race.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
One: That's a pretty good link. I like that. More people should know about Firehose. And meta-modding, for that matter.
Two: It's the Network Decay effect, where a specialized media site (channel, station, etc) moves away from its earlier focus in an attempt to attract a broader audience, often because people in the demographic their focus caters to ALSO likes a different focus. Yes, it used to be that Slashdot really was "news for nerds, stuff that matters" as in the stories had a very nerdy or technology angle, and it wasn't quite good enough that "well, some nerds would find this non-tech stuff important, so let's run with it." Now it's a bit different, but some people still complain about the the minor format shift. On the scale of Network Decay, Slashdot is probably between Major Shifts That Fit (bringing other things in without leaving their genre) and Slipped (still pays attention their genre, but there's a lot of non-genre stuff mixed in).
The physical evidence and witness testimony pretty clearly indicated that Zimmerman stopped following him, returned to his car, and Martin chose to return back to Zimmerman to start a fight instead of continuing home where he was already headed.
Being followed by somebody doesn't entitle you to turn around and slam their head into concrete repeatedly, especially after they stop following you, otherwise mall cops would have one hell of a dangerous job. That's ultimately what it came down to.
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
A SWAT team maybe, but not regular cops. They usually carry around a 38 special or a glock or something, maybe a shotgun in their trunk. It's pretty easy to get a hold of more deadly weaponry than that. Even if not, there isn't much work involved for even an amateur gunsmith to convert legal firearms into tactical weapons.
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
if you're carrying a loaded weapon, and you enter into a fistfight, then your life is in danger.
Depends on what you mean by unscathed. It won't cost him anything (people are donating all kinds of money to his legal defense) and it is already forgone that he won't do any jail time. However he will continue to have his name dragged in the mud by the media for some time to come if the NAACP does this.
This is wrong on so many levels in either case. The justice system found him not guilty, and under the spirit of the constitution its time to let him continue his life as best he can now. Sadly, people like Zimmerman and the Duke Lacrosse players who are innocent never live normal lives again, thanks to groups like the NAACP.
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
Still, I feel that Zimmerman should have some punishment for ignoring the common-sense guidelines of both Neighborhood Watch and the police-station dispatcher.
If you are carrying a deadly weapon, you have a higher obligation and responsibility than one who is not, and Zim's carelessness should result in punishment of some sort. I hope there is a civil penalty not unlike the OJ civil case.
Although he's not guilty of direct "murder" per se, his foolishness resulted in an unnecessary death and he shouldn't be able to walk away as if nothing happened. It sends a wrong message and bad precedent.
Table-ized A.I.
Yeah, you got a CCW permit. We got the message and we all think you're the hardest bastard on earth.
You can shut the fuck up about it now.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
That's one of the most ironic things about this. The biggest threat to Zimmerman's life was the fact that he decided to walk around with a loaded weapon.
This guy's incompetence knows no bounds. I was hoping he could be barred from doing any community service as a punishment in all this since he is apparently such a huge threat to himself and the people who are forced to be near him.
All the talk and joking about vigilantes harming him in the future is funny for this reason too -- they don't even have to do anything. If he's left to his own devices, I wouldn't be surprised to hear about him accidentally killing himself with his gun, or crushing himself working on his car because he forgot to secure it, or drowning in his own bathtub.
Is conducting a life endangering assault a synonym for for defending yourself against some two-bit bully who's hassling you without any reason or legal authority?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
He doesn't know it, but statistically it's a fair guess. Check the murder rates for the US vs UK, Germany, even Australia...
I mean if it was just as easy to kill people with your bare hands why bother with guns at all?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Hey, dancing's dangerous. I broke someone's cheek bone once.
Her husband was surprisingly sangfroid about it.
Right. Follow up an anti-racist statement with a prejudiced one. Beautiful.
Could you fill me in? I've not been following it very closely (UK based, not big news over hear), and I'm finding the verdict a little confusing. Not least based on the content of TFA and the BBC news story.
Here's my understanding of events, based on just today's articles. Zimmerman leaves his house armed with a gun, and curb crawls around his neighbourhood "on patrol". A teenage boy with no criminal record or history of violence walks through the neighbourhood after visiting the local shops to buy some food (the "bag of Skittles"). There is a small possibility that he has been involved in vandalism or petty theft at school, but nothing had ever come of it. Zimmerman calls 911 to report a "suspicious person"; the operator tells him to leave it well alone. Zimmerman gets out of his car and follows Martin on foot, who is still walking in the direction of his house, and then some violence ensues. The Prosecution claim that Zimmerman confronted Martin with his gun, Martin may possibly have reacted in self defence, and in the fracas Zimmerman pulled the trigger killing him. The Defence claims that Martin turned and made an unprovoked violent assault on Zimmerman, "smashing his head into the concrete ground", and "grabbing for the gun". The articles report that Zimmerman did not have serious injuries, and Martin's DNA was not on the gun. Also, grabbing for an attacker's gun seems like a plausible reaction to being confronted by an armed gunman.
I'm a firm believer in the jury system, and I genuinely believe that they would only have made their decision if the evidence took them there. But I'm just not understanding it from the news articles. I presume this is a failure of the news articles, not of the jury system.
So I'm genuinely asking (I'm not emotionally involved in this, and I'm not trolling)- can someone talk me through it?
Holy shit. You REALLY assume too much. I bet you know everything about me, right? Just like you know everything about this case...
As for the CCW - I don't. I DID take the course for it though...right here in Austin, TX. It takes about 10 hours to go through it here...there is a class, a written exam, and a proficiency test. I passed all of them - and then never bothered to do the fingerprinting, application, and photos required to get one. I don't need it...but I DID want to learn the firearms laws here in TX. Taking the class is a great way to do it. Plus...hey...you get a little range time in. Believe it or not, target shooting can be kinda fun.
FYI, the laws here are VERY different from getting a CCW in PA (my home state) which I don't even think has a test. (Written or otherwise.)
Anyways...wow. I mean...I AM a hard bastard and all of that, but the hardest on earth? Thanks!
I understand this can be a widelay spoken about case. But, come on, this is slashdot, not the Sunday Times!!!
Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
No, Martin conducting a life endangering assault is literally what happened: Noted Forensic Pathologist Says Zimmerman Story “Consistent” with Evidence, As Defense Case Nears End
If anyone had a problem with thuggery, it was Martin.
Has State Opened Door to Defense Introducing Martin Fight Video?
Zimmerman judge excludes Trayvon Martin fighting, social media and marijuana use
Saturday Night Card Game (Would Zimmerman case have been filed if “creepy ass cracker” comment known?)
Trayvon Martin’s Involvement In Local Burglaries Covered Up By Media, School, Police, Prosecutors
Trayvon Martin was suspended three times from school
Zimmerman was on the phone with the police as a member of the neighborhood watch reporting Martins suspicious behavior. He wasn't "hassling" Martin. He did have a reason, and what he did was legal.
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
Perhaps Zimmerman shouldn't pick fights with people if he doesn't like the consequences?
Lucky for him, he now only needs to decide if he likes shooting black kids more than he dislikes taking a few knocks...
This won't end well.
Required reading for internet skeptics
As a non American not living in the USA I never heard about this case. This is not related to IT (Zimmerman is not Reiser). Seen from the other side of the Atlantic this is just one among the thousands of murders that also happen in Europe. I believe it doesn't belong to Slashdot. My two cents.
That is of course a rhetorical question.
The implication of this verdict is that if George Zimmerman is not the cause of Martin's death (whether willfully, accidentally or in self defense)... therefore Martin is the cause of his own death.
You mean Martin shouldn't pick fights with people if the consequences could be bad. When one "doubles back, and attacks someone" they're the aggressor. Just a useful tip.
Om, nomnomnom...
Well, since he has added "IMHO" there's not much to cite. He clearly marked it as his opinion, which for things which otherwise would be considered statements of facts basically means "I have no evidence whatsoever for this but I believe it anyway."
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Your definition of "picking a fight" seems to leave out the pouncing from the shadows. Nothing Zimmerman did was initiating an "attack" on Martin whatsoever vis a vis when Martin then "attacked and proceeded to ground and pound an armed person... he died.
That's certainly not a "pumped up on the thrill of my own potential deadliness" mindset you've got there, it isn't at all more about macho posturing than calm consideration of self-defense, and it definitely isn't the mindset that leads to misjudging situations and "emptying a mag" into someone who's not doing anything wrong except triggering your paranoiac tendencies. /sarcasm
And now the grand questions : ask
yourself why Treyvon attacked GZ? Martin stood HIS ground. Not the other way round. Martin was harassed by an armed racist pig on a power trip. Zimmerman got his ass served for being a douchebag. Martin defended himself from Zimmerman. GZ went to Martin. Not the other way round. GZ is a PIG and a murderer. The verdict is ridiculous and wrong.
Do you even lift?
-- Using the preview button since 2005
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalking
Following someone with intent to intimidate or do them harm (or even, speculatively, to do them harm if you decide they're no good) is absolutely not just good faith, obeying-the-law behavior. Private citizens (like Trayvon Martin) have a right to be protected from intimidation and harassment as much as from assault and violence.
As a former military police officer and current concealed weapons licensee, I agree with much of this but dont shoot to kill. Shoot to stop the threat. Never fire a warning shot. Dont shoot in the leg to just injure.
don't cut it off www.mgmbill.org
Now comes the riots, the assaults on lone persons, the vandalism, the grief, now come all the stories that make you understand.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Heh. I agree with every point you've made - but I still think that Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter. That asshole had no business chasing after Martin in the first place. Fat little man staring bugeyed at me as I walk home from the store - he's tagged as a potential mugger or something. Fat boy gets out of his car to follow me into the backyards between my house and the neighbor? He's more than tagged. He becomes a SUSPECT. The bastard is out to get me.
Trayvon died because Trayvon wasn't suspicious enough to think that Zimmerman might be carrying. That was Trayvon Martin's only mistake.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
And, you are way out in the wrong field, whether that field be left or right. Self defense works even before the first punch is thrown. If you tell me that you're going to kick my ass, and I believe that you ARE going to kick my ass, you need only step toward me, or raise a hand, or make some gesture that indicates that you are about to strike me. At that moment in time, I can blow you into eternity, with impunity. THAT is self defense.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
" we do know that Martin at some point jumped Zimmerman."
Correction. We do NOT know that. We only know for certain that Zimmerman CLAIMS that Martin jumped him. There is no witness to Martin jumping Zimmerman, nor is there any witness to Zimmerman jumping Martin.
You may choose to believe Zimmerman, but don't hold Zimmerman's story out as a proven fact.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
The only problem with this is the prossectution completely failed to PROVE Zimmerman was doing ANY of that, there was NO PROOF of intent. Following with the INTENT to be a lawful witness when the police arrive is NOT STALKING. Sure Zimmerman may have used some bad judgement, but bad I probably used bad judgement last night too when I drove through on a surface street / major highway through a historically racially charged part of a nearby city to get home less than an hour after the verdict was announed (other option was a 30 mile detour). Neither act of judgement should be criminal here.
When your having your head beat into the ground and potentially have someone reaching for your gun (one fact, one claim), you have every reason to beleive your life is in danger, the standard for the law does not require there to be actual danger, just that a reasonable person might think there is. As during such situation you are in not condition to detemine the level of injury you are sustaining. If it were a single slap on the face or one punch to the nose while standing, maybe you could argue that a reasonable average person would not feel they were in danger, but on the ground having your head beat into the ground regardless if it were 1 or 30 times, is well beyond the standard of the average person feeling their life is in danger.
Speaking at a press conference after the verdict, prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda said he was "disappointed" with the verdict. "Who followed who? Isn't that what this case boils down to?" de la Rionda said
No, that is not what this case boils down to. What this case boils down to is who attacked whom first and how. That is why this case should never have gone to trial. The physical evidence corroborated Zimmerman's account and didn't disprove it. Eye witnesses corroborated Zimmerman's version. And, in the United States of American, a person is considered innocent until proven guilty. The prosecution couldn't prove it's case and appealed to emotion and tried to mislead the jury and shift the burden of proof during closing arguments. The prosecutor stated that Zimmerman's defense needed prove Zimmerman's version of events and had not done so. But, Zimmerman didn't have to do that. It is the prosecution's job to prove it was false beyond a reasonable doubt. They couldn't and didn't and so tried to shift the burden of proof and used appeal to emotion to win. They failed.
It is quite amazing to see so many comments that are stating that Zimmerman is guilty while not knowing the facts. Some obviously started from the position that Zimmerman should be assumed guilty and that his defense had to prove him innocent beyond a shadow of a doubt. That is not how the law works.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Except, Martin didn't know Zimmerman was armed. All he knew was that someone was watching/following him. Neither watching nor following is a crime. If Martin felt threatened, he could have called the police, yet he didn't. Martin didn't have to confront Zimmerman at all. He could have just continued on to his destination at which point nothing would have happened.
You are making assumptions based on absolutely no evidence to justify your biased opinion. Or, to put it more bluntly, you are making shit up.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
And what, the broken nose and cuts on his head came from banging his own head on the pavement in remorse before police showed up?
And now the grand questions : ask
yourself why Treyvon attacked GZ? Martin stood HIS ground. Not the other way round. Martin was harassed by an armed racist pig on a power trip. Zimmerman got his ass served for being a douchebag. Martin defended himself from Zimmerman. GZ went to Martin. Not the other way round. GZ is a PIG and a murderer. The verdict is ridiculous and wrong.
Well look at that, it's either a liberal or someone with a huge chip on their shoulder. So, perhaps you should ask: Why did Martin lay wait in ambush. He did not stand his ground, he attacked with no reasonable cause. If he was "in fear" he could have made it home in less than 4minutes.
Only the ignorant, and race baiters on the left post crap like that.
Om, nomnomnom...
One needs a link to the firehose to click on the firehose. It's not on the front page. Out of sight, out of mind. Apparently I have 15 firehose points.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
That CBS story is infotainment. It's low on details and high on emotionality. CBS throws in a reference to the Trayvon Martin case, which kicks the emotional temperature up a notch (there are 962 comments... cha-ching!)
Here's an actual court document from the prosecution arguing that "stand your ground" didn't apply to this woman's case.
you show so much concern about Travon being killed in self defense by a Hispanic, yet ignore the HUNDREDS of deaths of blacks by blacks in Chicago every year... hypocritical much?
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
He walked alone in a park. Unarmed. Some fat guy follows him where ever he goes. In a unfamiliar neighbourhood He said on the phone to his sister that was frightened. Considering the wide spread racism in the south of the US, it was probably not the first time he was harrased. Now try to put yourself in Treyvons shoes. Imagine being followed by someone all alone unarmed, you are scared. What do you do? Let "it" happen what you fear might happen? No. Either you run into a public place (like a shop/bar,etc) or you confront the harasser. There was to public place.
Btw : how do you know GZ was ambushed? Are you an eye witness?
Regarding your other remarks : you are full of shit.
Perhaps you should go spend some time reading the evidence of the case. They weren't in a park, they were in a cut-alley between housing complexes. He wasn't in an unfamiliar neighborhood, he'd been living there for several weeks. I keep hearing about this alleged "racism in the south" but I spend 3mo/year there and have since 2000, and have yet to see it.
What do I do? I stop, and confront. If need be, I head home. I could walk the distance from where the incidence took place, faster then the amount of time Martin waited to ambush. And how do you know he was ambushed? Zimmerman started walking in a loop pattern down the main pathway, and was attacked while attempting to return to his point of origin. While circumstantial, it does point to being ambushed.
No, and my other remarks are spot on. And to point, all I need to do is look at various social media websites and note the similar statements from liberals and other left-leaners.
Om, nomnomnom...
Since when is jumping someone, instead of running the fuck away as fast as humanly possible, is "defensive"?
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Ok lets get this straight, he never ignored the advice of police, at most he ignored what could reasonably be called an ambiguous statement by a 911 operator. "We don't need you to follow him"
Some people want 911 operator = police, and therefore have the legal weight of a police order, and the words:
"We don't need you to follow him" to read "DO NOT FOLLOW HIM" neither of which are true.
After the audio of the call was released, reports by CNN[346] and other news outlets alleged that Zimmerman had said "fucking coons" two minutes and twenty-one seconds (2:21) into the call. Two weeks later on April 4, 2012, CNN claimed that enhanced audio revealed that Zimmerman had said "fucking cold."[347] The following day, April 5, 2012, CNN's Martin Savidge reported that forensic audio expert Tom Owen claimed it was "fucking punks."[348] It is said to be "fucking punks" in the affidavit of probable cause, dated April 11, 2012.[31] Other reviewers of the call have offered alternate interpretations of what was said, some labeling it "unintelligible."
But hey, if a dude is smashing your head into the pavement, you have no right to protect yourself. Because... racism! or something!
THL phish sticks
What are the odds of getting six white people on a jury? What are the odds of tossing heads six times in a row?
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.
We don't know this, but it is a possile plausible chronology. What we do know is Trayvon yelled "Why you following me" and then his phone hit the ground and a bump could be heard on the line. My "suspicion" is that Zimmerman attempted to tackle him at that point. TM was not trained in martial arts (as was GZ) and was lighter, younger, and less experienced. GZ had a history of fighting and even assaulted a police officer.
But TM had an advantage, he was terrified. I think that TM was able to get GZ off of him and pin him to the ground. GZ responded with escalation of force.
Again, that's my suspicion. It could be TM would randomly attack people who were following him, but I think that's less plausible.
It looks like Martin also decided that he wasn't going to wait and see how things go before he defended himself.
Zimmerman's life was not in danger, and defending yourself is *never* an excuse to harm someone with impunity...
That's what I would think if I were on the jury.
From the Wikipedia link you just submitted:
"Stalking can be defined as the willful and repeated following, watching and/or harassing of another person. Unlike other crimes, which usually involve one act, stalking is a series of actions that occur over a period of time."
OK, lay on the ground and let us start bashing the back of your head into the pavement. We'll stop when you think your life is in danger from repeated concussions.
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
"Considering the wide spread racism in the south of the US..."
You're pulling that out of your ass. I contracted all over during my career and I *never* saw such raw, unadulterated racial hatred as I experienced in the NE and Chicago. Never. Yet, every time, they would spout about southern hatred. Such self-blinded people.
Says the doctor who was called as an expert witness and testified that you CAN be killed from that and that he had every right to believe his life was in danger.
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
Because involuntary manslaughter charges would not have appeased the groups calling for charges to be filed. They would have caused the protests to increase instead
Actually, the law might disagree with you there. The FIRST person to throw any sort of blow is typically not allowed to use self-defense in most states if the altercation ends with a single action.
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
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
(1) Whines about the media
(2) Believes the media was trying to convict Zimmerman*, but fails to notice media trying to acquit Zimmerman
Obviously a Faux-News sheep here.
(*) Opinions on the Zimmerman trial showed a steep partisan divide. The party of white resentment rallied around the poor white vigilante who stalked a black man with a gun, got beat up, and then pulled the trigger. The party sees racism as a structural institution in society did pretty much the opposite. Let's be honest with ourselves and admit that how we see race was a strong prior on how we saw the trial.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
You're not from Florida, are you?
Here, to get a CCW, we're only required to take a BS class, and to show "proficiency" with a firearm. The class is training on how to fill out the form. The "proficiency" test is to fire one shot. There may be better places doing the training, but that's the majority. From there, a set of fingerprints and a photograph are sent off to FDLE, who gives them to the FBI to verify you have no serious criminal background.
You can get a firearm with a lot less. You pay, and ID information is sent off to FDLE to verify you have no serious criminal background. You can pick up the weapon in 3 days.
There are people, like myself, who *have* gone through a lot of training. We are the exception. I would say the vast majority who own firearms and have CCW permits, have had no formal training beyond the single shot to demonstrate proficiency. Many of them have had and continually renewed their CCW for many years.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
The majority of murders are carried out with hands and feet.
Not even close: FBI stats on weapons used in murders
For those too lazy to follow the link, in an average year about 14000 people are killed, about 9750 with firearms and 4250 with anything else.
I am officially gone from
I happen to actually live and work in the South full-time. I am white. My room-mate is black. Trust me, there's still a ton of racism here.
Just because they aren't marching in full Klan regalia as often doesn't mean it went away.
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
Some of the controversy surrounding Google Glass is people worried about being video recorded by others and having that video made public and subject to whatever scrutiny and ridicule the friends, family, neighbors, coworkers and public in general can come up with.
But what if you're the one wearing Glass, and get accused of something you didn't do? Or somebody does something to you and there's otherwise no evidence? Suddenly your Glass can save your bacon. It can be abused, of course, but it can also be a powerful form of self defense. If either GZ or TM had a video record of what happened that night, I wonder first about how the events would have unfolded differently and second if there would have been nearly as much controversy if there wasn't the he-said-she-said aspect.
For some interesting sci-fi reading about related subjects, check out The Light Of Other Days by Arthur C Clarke and Stephen Baxter, and The Truth Machine by James L. Halperin.
The "Stand your ground law" isn't really a factor when someone jumps you, pounds your head against the cement, is on top of you and reaches for a gun, even your gun.
It's also not a factor when you stalk someone after being instructed not to do so, and get into an altercation with them because you're a Big Man With A Gun. And I say this as a proponent of concealed carry laws.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
He was found Not Guilty, remember? The police have to give him his old gun back.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
We know that there was an altercation. Characterizing that altercation as "Martin jumped Zimmerman" means that you accept Zimmerman's tale without question. I do NOT find Zimmerman to be credible. He has a history as bad or worse than Martin's history.
http://globalgrind.com/news/george-zimmerman-was-known-jekyll-and-hyde-deatils
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Your facts are a bit skewwed, I am not sure about your country, but in the US the standard for a criminal conviction is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that someone commited the crime, and the standard of self defense is if a reaonable person might have felt their life was in danger in a similar circumstance, there is no actual need for their life to be in danger.
The facts shown at trial to the jury are of course not all the facts that we the public know, as things were ruled by the judge as not admissible on both sides, on one side the prosectuion could not tell the jury Zimmerman once had a restraining order sworn against him by an ex girlfriend (he swore one against her too), and on the other the defense could not bring up Martin's history of interest in street fights, general conduct as a teenager, etc.
The highlights of my understanding are:
The events took place on a dark and rainny night in a gated community, Martin was an overnight guest in the community (which some claim make him a resident), there was a history of break ins, mostly being commited by young black men in the area (claims on this vary a little), Zimmerman was part of an anti crime neighbood watch, and was legally carrying a concealed firearm (easy to obtain permit required in Florida), Martin appears to have been out to a nearby store buying candy, and was talking on his phone to a female friend through the first part of the encounter, Zimmerman was on the phone with 911 after observing Martin walking in a way he considered suspisious (this is where the racial profiling allegations come from), possibly looking in windows, walking behind houses, etc, Zimmerman choose to get out of his vehicle and follow Martin while the 911 operator stated that police had been notified, and they "did not need him to follow (martin)", some people want this to read a police officer ordered him not to follow, Martin's phone call with friend ended shortly before the scuffle, friend on phone did not come off as credible witness on the stand, spoke poor english, and her statements changed multiple times when it came to the words Martin used, was VERY confrontational with the lawyers, etc. There was some type of scuffle, there were no eye witnesses at the moment shots were fired, or when the scuffle started, but most witnesses identified Martin as being on top, which agrees with the balistic evidence from the gun shot, Zimmerman claims to have lost track of Martin while following him, then was heading back to his vehicle when Martin ambushed him, there was a fight, Zimmerman was hit in the face at least once, likely multiple times, and had a possible broken nose (no xrays were taken to confirm this), while Martin was on top Zimmermans head was likely beaten into the sidewalk / ground, number of times unknown. Zimmerman fired his gun, killing Martin
On a personal note there were a lot of red herrings in this case, like the lack of DNA on the gun that you mention, In his statement to Police Zimmerman said he fellt Martin reaching down his side toward the gun, no statement of touching the gun was made to the police. Reportedly Zimmerman told a friend Martin grabbed the gun, this may have been embelishment on the part of Zimmerman, but it was not a statement made to police. Also their was question brought up at trail about how the gun was swabbed for DNA. The extent of the injurries in the case were another big red herring, as the legal standard is that person can claim self defense if a reasonable person might feel their life is in danger in similar circumstances. It does not matter the extent of the injuries, just that a reasonable person might think their life is in danger while sustaining them.
The first action in any scenario that I have described is your verbal assault and threat. In any state that has a self defense law, the only test that must be met is that I had a reasonable fear of death or serious injury.
If you make the threat, and follow that up with the slightest gesture that can be construed to be threatening, then self defense works. One doesn't have to wait until that first blow connects successfully to defend himself. If Mike Tyson threatens to punch your lights out, then raises his hand, are you going to wait until he has knocked you out to react? DUHH! Self defense is what it is, and your lack of understanding doesn't change the law.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
I'd demand the Kel-tec back. Not that it's not a POS, but because of what I could e-bay if for.
I'd use 1% of what I got for the Kel-tec and buy me a Kimber and a Barret.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
To follow up on that: jurors are not selected randomly. The defense and prosecution pick from a larger set of jurors. What are the chances all jurors would be female? That is 1.6% but not a coincidence. The prosecution surely would have gotten a couple of black people on the jury if they thought they had a solid race argument. Rather they opted for the female/mother angle ("what if Trayvon was your child?").
A lot of folks are asking what would have happened if Martin was white and Zimmerman was black. I think it's a good question to ask, and unfortunately the verdict could have been very different. Another question that I'd like those people to ask is "what if Zimmerman's last name was Sanchez, or Juarez, or Mesa (his mom's maiden name)?". Would there still be these claims of racism?
The best way to predict the future is to invent it.
Yes, someone smashing your head against the pavement isn't grounds to defend yourself with force... you can't do that until you're passed out from your head hitting the pavement enough times to cause traumatic damage and it's much more clear you're going to die. Oh... wait...
Most of the Castle Doctrine laws across the nation don't require imminent death as a requirement. Grave bodily harm to yourself or another is enough. Fear for your life is also enough.
If you've got a guy who's a couple of inches taller than you straddling your chest and smashing your head against the ground, I'd say that qualifies as fear of death or grave bodily harm. You have no idea when the dude is going to stop, if at all, nor what kind of injury you might suffer in the process. Head injuries aren't exactly trivial. I'd have pulled the trigger in the same instance, no question. The rights of the guy who's beating the shit out of me don't trump my right to defend myself, nor am I required to wait until it progresses to the point where it's potentially lethal.
Maybe so but did George Zimmerman have any good reason to get out of his vehicle in the first place? If I thought I was being stalked by someone I might try to jump them too.
Well the 911 operator asked him where TM was going. That's when he got out of the car to find out. When the 911 Operator asked if he was following TM he said yes and the Operator told him 'you don't have to do that' and he said 'OK'. They then went on to discuss addresses or locations where the cops could meet him.
Why he got out of his car was done to death in the trial, and the 911 Operator was stepped through every line in the conversation. It's available on youtube
1) Travon was found with two injuries: a gunshot wound to the chest, and broken skin on his knuckles.
2) Zimmerman had a broken nose
3) Zimmerman had lacerations on the back of his head.
Occam's Razor.
I'll grant you that it is possible that Zimmerman initiated a confrontation. If that happened, Travon certainly continued well beyond any allowance for self defence, between (2) and (3).
Galactic metric time: 332444635.9.7763
Location: Orion Arm, Milky Way Galaxy, G2V-661221, third planetary body
Genderoverbearers:
After observation of the subject race (hereby referred to as "Humanity") we have come to the conclusion that they are not ready for First Contact. It has been observed that they still attack each other solely because of their subspecial characteristics.
Suggestion that Humanity be reevaluated for FC in 1000 of the solar orbits. Suggestion that local RF, coherent light, and neutrino communication encryption sphere be maintained around G2V-661221 (a.k.a "Sol) for a radius of 3.1 light years, and that all spacecraft traffic within sphere continue stealth generator use. Special consideration must be observed to the dual request of the Alpha Centurians and Tau Cetians who are tired of Humanities inane communication chatter.
With subservient fear of offensiveness,
Xexxzzqkl, First Contact Evaluation specialist
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
What are the odds of getting six white people on a jury? What are the odds of tossing heads six times in a row?
Different maths. Head or Tails on an unbiased coin is random chance. Jury selection is just that, selection.
Specifically jury selection is meant to rule out bias. The prosecution will move to strike any juror that strongly opposes their side. The defence tries the same thing. So you should end up with the least biased pool of jurors.
In this case, the prosecution had a technically weak case. They had the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, yet the forensics were a nightmare, most of their witnesses were testifying in favour of the defendant and the witnesses who were firmly in their camp had had initial statements and depositions taken in very dubious circumstances. So they were going with the hopes that an emotional plea would get around that burden of proof.
The defence on the other hand had a technically strong case, for all the reasons cited above. So they needed people who wouldn't have preconceived notions or agendas, who would let the evidence and rule of law decide.
So the union of the sets {people more likely to be swayed by emotion} and {people least likely to have prejudicial knowledge of this case} turned out to be women who were mostly white (one was I believe hispanic). Either the prosecution or the defence struck off everyone else.
is a danger to cowards like you and can be shot on sight, right? Or would you prefer a good old fashioned lynching?
Since when does a teenager need a "good reason" to be walking along the street?
Ah the "walking along the street' meme. As opposed to the checking out peoples houses and yards in the pouring rain in a suburb which has a recent high incidence of break ins? The first one wouldn't be a reason for neighbourhood watch to call it in. the second one probably would, and was what was testified to by the 911 Operator, the nieghbourhood watch organiser and the lady who actually had a home invasion in the area.
He was hassling him, as the police told him to stay in the car. Of course, people like you can't resist a chance to pretend to be all macho when you think you can get away with intimidating an unarmed minority kid. Especially when you have your little mechanical penis replacement to help you out if your victim decides to stand their ground.
Characterizing that altercation as "Martin jumped Zimmerman" means that you accept Zimmerman's tale without question
No, it doesn't. The explanation that Martin jumped Zimmerman, and was the first to initiate violent action is supported by the forensic evidence. Zimmerman had a broken nose and a cut to the back of his head. Martin had broken skin on his knuckles. This means that at least Martin punched Zimmerman to the ground. The evidence does not support (nor refute) the story about Martin banging Zimmermans head into the concrete. This is good for Zimmerman since his presumption of innosence and the concept of reasonable doubt ways in his favor.
Zimmerman is a piece of shit, I know. That doesn't mean the law doesn't apply to him. Martin was also, by accounts, a bit of a violence lover. Sadly for him (since he is dead) that only plays in Zimmermans favor. Again, remember, the only requirement here is reasonable doubt. Zimmerman doesn't have to proove squat, he only has to create reasonable doubt. Saying there was no reasonable doubt in this case seems absurd to me. I'd like to see a an argument for there not being reasonable doubt here. The fact that Zimmerman was a shit is not enough to remove reasonable doubt.
Isn't that how it almost always is?
Revise things with false "facts" until it "happened the way it ought to have".
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
It is a murky one, without doubt.
The question, I suppose (for we gawkers, not for the courts- as you say, beyond reasonable doubt etc.) is whether Zimmerman's narrative seems plausible. Martin was a teenager, out on his own, with no history of violence or criminal record, who appears to have simply been walking home from the shops with some sweets. Zimmerman claims that Martin leapt on him unprovoked, "sucker punched" him, and brutally assaulted him by smashing his head against the kerb (something which could very easily have been murder). We are also told he made a grab for a gun which we are told was lawfully concealed when he launched his ambush. Whilst being pinned down and having his head repeatedly smashed against concrete, Zimmerman managed to unholster his concealed weapon and fire it.
The alternative narrative seems more seductive. Zimmerman was a man who had armed himself (legally, but that's beside the point) and had taken himself out "on patrol"- he went out looking for criminals. He saw someone who he managed to convince himself was a trouble maker, and called the police. He decided to help the police do their job, by following the person and brandishing a gun. Martin, spooked at being followed by a stranger with a gun, reacted in reasonable self defence- tackling Zimmerman, hitting out at him, and trying to disarm him. During this scuffle, Zimmerman fired his gun.
I suppose where I am struggling with this one is by trying to extrapolate the consequences to other cases. Let's try the "dark alley" test. Two men separately enter a dark alley with no witnesses. Neither have a criminal record. One of them is armed. The unarmed man is shot dead. The Prosecution argues that this is murder. The defendant says "he started it- it was self defence". Can there be a conviction? Or to put it another way, is it ever possible to reach a conviction for murder/assault in a case with no independent witnesses, or is every case of "he said, she said" an automatic acquittal? By consequence, if I want to murder someone and get away with it, do I simply need to do it when no-one is watching?
Right. Follow up an anti-racist statement with a prejudiced one. Beautiful.
Pardon? Are you not a human? American is nationality. It is neither a race or ethnicity as your country composed of immigrants and descendants of immigrants. Do you see people Calling Canadian a race of ethnicity? No.
I was speaking the the character of many people in the states. I have met a lot of really nice people but I have also seen many examples of racism entrenched in virtually every ethnicity within the US. It is time to put that racism and talk of slavery behind you. You can remember history without dwelling on it. Unfortunately, many in America keep on dwelling on it rather than learning from it and moving on.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Almost all men and probably a lot of women, at some point in their life, have engaged in a physical unarmed fight where it can be said that they "could have been paralyzed or killed" in some hypothetical play of events. Fights happen all the time and when you're losing it doesn't feel good, but the human body is surprisingly resilient to getting the shit kicked out of it. I get annoyed by people who say ' be a man and take it', but i have to say it applies in this case, as does the cliche about a gun being a substitute for a penis. Our society has too much of the mentality of 'could have been paralyzed or killed' or 'could have been bombed by a terrorist' or 'could get nuked' and on and on. It's an irrational mindset caused by insecurity and lack of knowledge and it makes us weaker.
I didn't say anything about rape. And yes, he should have been willing to take a beating rather than kill someone attempting to give a beating.
There are some truths about reality that offend our sense of personal importance.
1. World peace can't be done. There will always be irrational people, and you must oppose them with force.
2. Pluralism doesn't work. Society only functions when there's a single standard of values and thus behavior.
3. Diversity doesn't work (corollary to point #2). The happiest societies are unified in values, heritage, culture, language and basic philosophy.
4. Group delusion is normal. A large group of people will settle on not only a lowest common denominator but on a wishful thinking illusion.
5. We are not all equal. Some are better at others than certain things and deserve more power.
There are more, but these are some starter heresies for our modern time. Our society is as controlled as the Soviets, as lynch mobby as the Salem witch-burning days, and as closed-minded as the toughest religious fanatics.
We're just doing it in subtler ways.
Futurist Traditionalism
Pick a fight, get hit a couple times; claim fear and shoot. A perfect murder.
Obviously, I wouldn't personally like it if it happened to me. That doesn't matter, it's not relevant. One shouldn't be thinking selfishly when designing policies. Life often sucks and it's not fair, sometimes you are just unlucky.
Most people would rather serve jail time than be dead. To let people just kill for no other reason than their FEAR of serious harm or death-- one can only see a future where paranoid cowards can legally kill many people over their lifetime. A serial killer only has to kill a couple people in a pattern.
Death is a big deal, but somebody else's is not? You seem to think murder is no big deal. Jail SUCKS so does murder/death. Americans love to talk about "debt to society" in regards to crime... well, be consistent and make people pay that debt regardless. Obviously, self defense would get a much lower sentence than premeditated.
I can't wait until a STALKER uses this stuff to kill his victim.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Perhaps, he should not. But even if he did pick up the fight (and there is no evidence, he did, actually), he is still entitled to defend himself.
Racists — and there is no evidence Zimmerman is one — are also entitled to self-defense.
I am wondering, when the government starts prosecuting the threatening and menacing online postings like your own.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Wow, I just realized how important someone's race is in your world view.
It seems facts don't matter, if there is a difference in skin color.
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.
" If that happened, Travon certainly continued well beyond any allowance for self defence, between (2) and (3)."
How do you arrive at that conclusion? While, at the same time, defending Zimmerman's right to shoot Martin dead?
If Zimmerman had the right to kill someone in self defense, then so did Martin.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
So now the media frenzy can continue. They're pushing for a civil rights trial for Zimmerman.
Getting to the point where there is no such thing as civil rights in this country.
Zimmerman was legally found innocent. Not saying the verdict was right or wrong, but I wasn't in the courtroom either.
So if they can sue him for violating Martin's civil rights they violate the civil rights of Zimmerman.
Catch-22.
Wuddooeyeno? IITYWYBMAD? Like nuts? eclecticallyincorrect.com
The Hispanic woman was black + Hispanic.
If you'd just waited a bit longer, you could have been the 3 millionth registered user. Then you would really have a bargaining chip. Really, who cares if #2982969 leaves after posting only one item. But #3,000,000?? Just look at all those zeros. That would be something worthy of attention by the site leaders. Too bad you had to pop off too soon. Bye-bye number two-nine-whatever.
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.
"Why did Martin lay wait in ambush?"
We don't know that he did. Zimmerman says he did. Martin can't exactly defend himself. There are no third party witnesses detailing the beginning of the assault.
And therein lies the problem. There's not enough evidence to say either way, and there's that "Reasonable Doubt" issue that the jury has to worry about.
Personally, I believe that Zimmerman created the situation, and should lie at fault. That may not be enough to convict in a criminal trial, but I hope the likely civil trial nails the guy to the wall.
that's the question...
was his life in danger?
that's the question I posed, but somehow it brought out all the gun right's trolls...
notice I am not, at all, in any way, shape or form, discussing or questioning or assailing gun rights...
i'm asking if Zimmerman's life was in danger when he killed Trayvon...was his life in danger?
Thank you Dave Raggett
There is a FL 2012 statue that says acquittal by reason of self-defense provides immunity from civil suits. This is in several states now.
refactor the law, its bloated, confusing and unmaintainable.
...He was only charged after a lot of blacks fired up the black community to send a message to other black youths that it is alright to attack and try to kill a "cracker", and if he defends himself we can get him arrested. "
Congratulations. That is the single most fucked-up thing I've seen anyone write on this entire 17-month event. Yes, if not for last night's verdict being what it was, there might be angry muscular doped-up black youths coming to kill you right now. Thank God for American Justice, eh?
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
I grew up in, live in, and work full time in the South, proudly, and in just about as small-town South as you can get, for 48 years now. AAMOF, the population of the county I live in is 70% black, and as an aside it is only a few miles up the road from where the opening shots of the Civil War were fired. I live alone, so I do not have a black roomate (as if that would/should qualify anyone for anything...???), yet many of the people in my circle of friends are black, just as I am white. We happened to be born that way, it was not of our choosing.
As to the allegations of the poster above: Yes, there is racism around here, but trust me, it ain't one-sided, and it most certainly is not at all solely on the part of "the Klan", or IOW white people, as you imply. "The Klan"? Really? That "the Klan" is even brought up is so baffling that if it wasn't so sad it would be almost amusing. In my 48 years as a Southerner here in the deep South, I have known exactly _one_ white person whom I can say was at least somewhat acquainted with "the Klan". She was in my 3rd or 4th grade class, this was back in the 1970's, and she was a bit of an outcast to everyone even at that age, as it was rumored her father was a Klansman. To this day I don't know if he was or not, but even that far back, and that close to the 60's, prejudice of that sort was frowned upon by anyone and everyone else I can ever think of whom I know was/is a Southerner.
In all honesty, I actually meet very few bigots of either color here in the South, yet they are exactly that - idiots of both colors. To claim otherwise is disengenuous, misleading, and perpetuates stereotypes which should have long ago been abandoned in the face of reality. Yet it somehow fits the agenda of some people to make Southern white folk seem like bigoted hayseeds who've never changed in the almost 150 years since the Civil War ended, or in the 50 some odd years since the Civil Rights movement.
This totally ignores the fact that nearly *every* large Northern city is de facto segregated, and that the black populations there live in areas with crime rates that soar far above anything we have in the rural South, or that their white neighbors up there have to deal with. If you ask me, *those* places are the bastions of prejudice, they are the more likely breeding grounds for racial discontent, and this is due to a continued economic enslavement of a people who are not being allowed equal opportunity by those around them, the ones who control the money, jobs, and power structure.
tThink about it - why is the South always pilloried over racism, when it is Chicago which has a "South Side", LA a "Watts", NYC a "Brooklyn" or "Harlem" or whatever the 'black area' of the city is up there, etc etc...?
It seems to me that the people who point fingers and decry white Southerners as "prejudiced" and "Klansmen" merely do so in order to keep the focus away from themselves and the conditions in the areas in which they live that continue to perpetuate a strict divide between the races.
My Southerner black friends don't like to be stereotyped, and - surprise surprise - neither do I nor any of my Southerner white friends. If you think that the South is the holdout of racism and bigotry, come for a visit, see how us Southerners work, live, love, and die together as a *community* of people, and after that we'll go travel up north, to one of those urban areas I listed, and you'll see what the *real* face of racism looks like, and where it is being practiced.
"...there are some things that can beat smartness and foresight. Awkwardness and stupidity can." ~ Mark Twain
You're honestly wrong if that's your impression. Human behavior, and 'self defense' doesn't work like you describe, and you can't justify a killing on a 'probably'
I strongly doubt you've ever been in a real fight. If you have you would understand that hitting someone, or knocking their head into concrete is not 'life threatening'...people can want to hurt another human *very badly* yet not have any intent to kill.
Your test for 'self defense' is way too weak to be used consistently across other cases.
I am not expecting you to agree with me, although you should. I want you to have seen what i'm saying, to be exposed to the idea.
We have a generation of men like you who are over-sensitive and under-experienced physically.
I don't care if you're a former cop or military special forces or w/e, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how fights between humans operate and what constitutes a 'threat' to a life
You are too sensitive man.
Thank you Dave Raggett
"Had this been in earlier times, but in the present tense, and a random cross section of that town been chosen, in all probability Zimmerman would have been justifiably convicted, as he should have been! "
Err I was with you up to there.
However I cannot see how an honest jury could possibly have convicted him on this. All the evidence presented to them argued for acquittal. Arguably the judge should have directed the verdict, the prosecution case was that threadbare.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
The thing that surprises me in this discussion is that, as far as I've browsed through the 1000+ comments, the issue of what has to be proved doesn't come up. It's proven that Zimmerman killed Martin. I would, naïve person that I am, assume that self-defence has to be proven for him to be acquitted, given that a crime (the killing) happened, the self-defence (which renders the crime legal [for lack of a better word]) would have to be proven. It seems that at least American law thinks differently, the thinking appears to be: since it's not a crime, provided it's self-defence, it is sufficent to prove that it's hard to prove that it wasn't self-defence. Which seems to make killing a much easier solution to a conflict.
If all he'd done was "call it in" there'd be no story.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Assuming Martin was defending himself for a moment, wouldn't it make sense for him to try to pin Zimmerman and then disarm him? In the dark and with Zimmerman assuming that Martin was the bad guy it would certainly seem like he was about to be shot with his own weapon.
Maybe they were both just idiots who ended up in a situation where they both assumed the other was attacking them and trying to kill them.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I would say that those "paranoid fears" have most certainly come to fruition.
"...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
Simply because it's been the #1 story on nearly all news outlets for weeks! And people just can't seem to get enough of it. Thousands of comments on each and every mention of Zimmerman on any news site that allows them, rehashing the same old thing over and over. It's the same as the 2 minute hate in 1984. A huge fucking distraction where news outlets feeds off the stupidity of the masses, receiving huge rating boosts from the inherit fascination and intense interest of each and every individual member trying to prove themselves smarter than their fellow man. At this point, news sites could probably charge a $1.99 per post and make a killing. All in all, a gigantic monkey pile of idiots and a cynical destructive body of press where the almighty dollar trumps any sort of integrity. The whole thing is as disgusting as it gets.
If the gun Ms. "Stand Your Ground" had used was 3D printed, it could be considered as interesting. But one a-whole fighting another to the death is not interesting, or news. Also, one should notice that avoiding hard questions causes calcium erosion in the spinal column, it has been noticed that there tends to be yellowish discoloration in the abdominal area. Other symptoms are a lack of ability to face one's antagonist in the optical area. The one question I have is, "If the deceased had a working phone, why didn't he call for help when followed by a human predator?" One can only imagine the nightmare Ms. "Stand Your Ground" would be facing today.
Both certainly had the right to self defense.
The culpability lies with who initiated the confrontation.
Definitely not. Pinning and disarming is something only for people who have trained to do that. If Zimmerman attacked first, it would have been Trayvon's right to employ lethal force in self defense. However, Trayvon's right to lethal force ends when Zimmerman breaks off the attack.
Trayvon's right to self defense does not include sitting on top of Zimmerman and banging Zimmerman's head against the pavement.
If Zimmerman pulled a gun first, then it would have been suicidal for Travon to subsequently attack with fists. That is not a plausible scenario.
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.
Besides, that's not what "stand your ground" means.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
The only way I can see it being relevant is that it was much more unusual that the jury lacked any men, than that it lacked any black members.
I didn't follow the case closely. At what point in the clear video of the incident did we see Martin lay in wait? You wouldn't say something so preposterous if it was merely the unbelievable story of the murderer, would you? There's no way you would be so guilless.
"I spend 3mo/year there and have since 2000, and have yet to see it."
That sounds like willful blindness to me. "Hey, look, nobody ever treated [non-black] me poorly so I am just going to assume racism is dead in this former slave state." Mmm hmm.
A bit of a beating?! Slamming someone's head into concrete isn't a bit of a beating, it is a serious attack. I don't know if you're familiar with the human brain, but it tends to not like coming to a quick stop due to meeting a hard surface.
I don't blame Zimmerman for panicking, I might have done the same, but his injuries were ultimately superficial. If Martin was simply punching him in the head MMA style (as according to one witness) Zimmerman might feel like he head is being slammed into the concrete but it's not going to cause much beyond a mild concussion. I suspect that was Martin's objective to lay on a bit of a beating, teach Zimmerman a lesson, and listen to his teenage hormones. There's no reason to think he wanted to seriously injure Zimmerman.
I stole this Sig
The point is Zimmerman started it by hunting an innocent child through the night, so any claim of "self defense" is nonsense because Zimmerman was on the offense, not the defense. It's 180-degrees opposite of self defense. It's exactly what self defense isn't.
I just don't see the basis for a claim of self defense. Zimmerman started it, therefore he was on the offense, not the defense. You can't defend yourself when you initiated an altercation.
This is my moral judgement, not a legal judgement. It's possible and maybe likely that Florida law is immoral.
Of course your life is in danger! You hunted an innocent boy through the night, started a fight, and now that boy is defending himself against you, his assailant! And you are a small-dick big-ego asshole who can't take a punch, which means you are losing the fight, and you know you are too physically and mentally weak to fight back without your gun! That really, really sucks for you, but society doesn't give a legal damn because you are the criminal, the assailant, the person who hunted down the innocent boy. So when you increase your crime from assault to murder, the law should reject your nonsense "self defense" claim because you weren't defending yourself, you were starting a fight you couldn't win.
Thank you for demonstrating the effectiveness of the propaganda campaign that brought this matter to trial. You bought the government's spin hook, line, and sinker. Luckily for Zimmerman, a jury trial means that the prosecution still has to prove a case, no matter how good a job the media does of trying to motivate a lynch mob.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Your nick serves you well over the years and it still does.
"hunting an innocent child" - loaded sentence, each word there is subject to scrutiny and does not withstand against it.
Trayvon was not a child.
Trayvon was not innocent, he liked fighting, he fought plenty, mostly won and even his friends told him he needed to stop. He dealt stolen property, was working with his father, known in the gang circles as "Fruit" to purchase and resell illegal firearms.
Zimmerman did not "start" violence, he called the police, Martin did start violence, he attacked Zimmerman.
"Hunting" is the type of language that the prosecution used, as if Zimmerman was 'hunting' Trayvon with his gun out, or some such nonsense.
Of-course we know it's complete bullshit from every perspective, a person doesn't turn around and attack somebody who has a gun, if the gun is in the hands and visible, a person with a gun does not allow his 'prey' to attack him close up, he shoots from distance, distance is his friend. A person with a gun does not attack somebody to go into a fist fight that he may lose and lose the gun to the opponent that can be used to kill the original gun owner.
Self defence is in fact the case here and it was the case from the start, the jury saw this clearly and Zimmerman is not guilty of anything because it was self defence. Same with the cop who originally refused to file charges of murder against Zimmerman (and was fired for that so that a political prosecutor could be brought into the case).
Self defence starts the moment you are attacked and believe your life and or health is in danger, at that point whatever you do is self defence and it's legal and must always stay that way.
You can't handle the truth.
Sounds like someone has been reading too much butt-hurt on Twitter today. Your post is full of angst, fallacies, and falsehoods. I wish you the best, but your world view needs some repair.
Also, wow, your uid is less than 200 older than mine. Pretty cool!
911 operators are always going to recommend the least dangerous course of action, they are trained to do that to minimise liability. Their instructions dont have the force of law, and GZ had no obligations to do as she advised. So that part, while (sort of) true, is just utterly irrelevant to the question here.
The rest? Nonsense. Name any evidence that pointed to a conspiracy by Zimmerman? None was presented, none exists.
The fact is that GZ shot a man who was on top of him pounding his head into the concrete, which is not illegal to do but more like a positive obligation. Full details of just how these two men wound up in that situation may be unknowable, but there was absolutely no evidence to say that GZ started it, or to contradict his story of what happened. Normally when people lie to get out of something, they make a mistake and that mistake will hang them.
Is GZ lying? I wasnt there, I dont know, but it seems quite likely he was telling the truth, if only because if he wasnt, it would have been so very likely that he get caught saying *something* that some piece of evidence could clearly contradict.
Given all that, the benefit of the doubt goes to the defendent, the guy has to walk. He would have probably never been charged in the first place if the media hadnt picked up on it and gone into feeding frenzy mode, selling more ads by catering to racist idiots on all sides.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Oh look, an Asian. I just made an ass out of myself.
Om, nomnomnom...
It is probably even more likely then you think. According to factfinder2.census.gov, 10.7% of the population in Seminole County, Florida is African American. I didn't read through all of the legal speak, but I am pretty confident that the jury was only pulled from the county. That would give a 52% chance of getting six non-black people on the jury.
I think the GP may have been asking about tossing heads 6 times in a row as to why there were 6 women on the jury (and no men). And to answer the GPs question... 6 whites on the jury? Roughly tossing heads twice in a row.
All of my numbers are based on the data not being too skewed by people ineligible for jury duty (such as those under 18).
Who said anything about limiting things to the US? Most of the world is neither wealthy enough nor empowered by their government to carry guns.
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
He made Martin feel reasonable fearful for his bodily protection
You were inside Martins head that day, so you can document this? Remember, the court doesn't give a sh*th what you think went on in Martins head that night, they need compelling evidence. What compelling evidence is there that Martin was scared?
Night school, I presume, since the shooting happened a little after 7PM.
Ok...so lets go hypothetical then. Lets say the guy TRIES to grab the kid. (The "kid" being roughly the same size as the guy...)
The kid resists. He's probably going to try to punch the guy, or try to break free and run. First off, in this hypothetical situation the guy broke the law by grabbing the kid. What happens next?
Well...
Case one: the kid DID break free and probably hit the dude and ran...and would most definitely be calling the cops because some whack job just tried to assault him in his own neighborhood. If the guy pulls a gun at this point and there are ANY witnesses, then the guy just pretty much screwed himself. If the kid or anyone else can describe the gun that the man was carrying, he's going to be in some serious trouble with the law enforcement. His gun toting days will be curtailed for awhile, or not be over entirely. If the guy shoots at this point, he's going to put a bullet in the kid's back. Also...not a good thing for when the police arrive. He'd be definitively screwed.
Case two: the kid didn't break free. Seriously...how many hands does the guy have? He's going to hold a guy his own size captive AND draw a gun on him? How the hell would that work? Again...the cops get there and the guy who did the grabbing is likely going to be taken away in a police cruiser. The kid and his family are probably going to press charges.
In either case, if there were shots fired, it would be kind of obvious what happened when they study the ballistics, etc. The distance he's shot from, the angle he was hit at, etc. If he shoots the kid in the back...bad news for him when the cops get there. If he shoots the unarmed kid from some number of feet away...again...obviously bad for him. If he shoots the kid after the kid knocks him down and was beating his head against the pavement - well - I don't know many self defense cases that look like that. Getting on top of someone and beating the crap out of them isn't a typical self defense scenario...
Bear in mind...all of these things are playing out in a residential neighborhood with people nearby. When they start hearing the commotion...they're going to show up. Neither of hypothetical situation is going to go well for the guy here...and he'd know that going into it. It's kinda obvious. And it's why things were really unlikely to have gone that way.
That's the thing with the stand your ground laws...you don't HAVE to retreat under the law, but that's not the same thing as saying that you shouldn't. You damn well should try to de-escalate the situation...and both parties were old enough to know that. It's kinda like the old saying that having the right to do something is not the same as being right to do it.
Both parties were being idiots, but most people here are polarized about it - they only see one of them as having really messed up.
Martin stood HIS ground.
From a man simply following him? Maybe it was a fan and wanted and autograph, or someone lost and wanted to ask directions? Intelligent humans usually talk first and do "jump and pound" as the last resort.
So it was a volunteer neighbourhood watch, it could have been a hired security guard just as well (and the latter would also not hesitate to shoot you when getting jumped).
"if a dude is smashing your head into the pavement, you have no right to protect yourself"
You give up the right to self-defense when you start a fight, which Zimmerman did by committing assault [causing reasonable fear for safety] against Martin. Therefore, Zimmerman couldn't possibly act in self defense, because he was on the offense. Martin attempted to defend himself against his murderer, but was unsuccessful.
What I'm saying is, yes, Zimmerman started it so he had to sit there and take his lumps. By refusing to lose the fight he started, by ending the fight he started by killing the person he assaulted, he committed murder -- or, perhaps, some lesser criminal homicide like manslaughter.
Everybody knows, or should know, that a power-tripping racist, just like any other person, can't possibly "defend" themselves when they started the altercation by hunting an innocent child through the night. What Zimmerman did is the opposite of self defense: he assaulted the innocent teenager. After that, any notion of "defense" can only be applies to the victim of the assault, Trayvon Martin.
There are to really good answers to that really good question:
1. when you think continuing to evade the person hunting you is no longer effective, such as when the hunter hunts you for a long time all across a neighborhood.
2. when the legislature of the not-so-great state of Florida says you have no duty to back down, but can stand your ground, as Martin did. While Martin was standing his ground and defending himself, his assailant, George Zimmerman, completed his hunt and murdered his victim.
You nailed it.
When I got my first (only) gun, I was trained (lightly, for one day) by a police officer. He told me what I'm sure someone told Zimmerman, which is if you even draw a gun on someone, you need to kill them, so there is only one story to be told in court. That is good self-serving advice, and Zimmerman got away with murder by following it.
Assault is a crime. Hunting an innocent person through the night when that person is fearfully trying to escape from you, is assault. Zimmerman's own story is that he hunted, and thus assaulted, Martin. Therefore Zimmerman can't possibly act in "self defense" because he was on offense, not defense. Only Martin could act in self defense, which he did, but was murdered anyway.
You can't defend yourself from a situation you created. That's the opposite of defense.
"Well, yes officer, I did hunt down that woman and tried to rape her, but then she scratched my face so I shot her in the chest. Self defense!"
If by following someone you cause them reasonable fear of safety, then you have committed assault, the way George did in this case. Would a reasonable person be fearful for their safety when a creepy ass cracker hunted them across a neighborhood at night? Yes.
Martin deserved a medal for appropriate application of self defense. Zimmerman deserved assault charges. With a gun, manslaughter or murder charges.
it's all about Zimmerman's reason for shooting and killing Trayvon.
he said it was 'self defense'
but his *life was not in danger*
see that? his life wasn't in danger so 'self defense' is no defense
Yeah, it's not like getting punched and having your head hit concrete can kill you. Oh wait...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
I just don't see the basis for a claim of self defense. Zimmerman started it, therefore he was on the offense, not the defense.
How did Zimmerman start it? What evidence is there for him starting the fight?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Talk to Kris Kime about what a punch and impact with concrete can do. Oh wait, you can't: he's dead from just that sort of thing.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Because he's in Florida where he knows black children can be murdered with impunity but can not, in any circumstance, expect the police to protect them. And look, he was right.
Being Asian doesn't or wouldn't make you an ass, but it would make you non-black like I said.
Assault requires both that a reasonable person would feel in danger, and also that the victim actually felt in danger. Since Martin was murdered by Zimmerman, we are forced to apply the reasonable person standard without his testimony. Any reasonable person, armed with nothing but wits and skittles, would be scared and would fear for their safety when an unknown creepy ass guy stalks them around the neighborhood and then gets out of their car and barges up to them.
He started it by assaulting Martin, which he admitted doing when he admitted hunting the innocent unarmed child through the night.
No matter how many times the prosecution or anyone else insists it, getting out of your vehicle and following someone is not assault. Particularly when they attack you on your way back to your car.
by ending the fight he started by killing the person he assaulted, he committed murder -- or, perhaps, some lesser criminal homicide like manslaughter.
All of the jurors disagreed. The police disagreed. The forensics experts disagreed. So you can keep saying that, but its not true.
Rachel Jeantel's testimony makes it clear that Zimmerman put his hands on Martin first.
If you believe that Trayvon Martin called George Zimmerman a creepy ass cracker and believe that Martin assaulted Zimmerman first then you have selectively believed only part of Jeantel's testimony... I wonder why?
I think Jeantel was telling the truth about Martin saying "get off, get off" to Zimmerman just before the phone cut out. The reality of the situation is that Zimmerman put his hands on Martin first.
Not only is calling someone a "cracker" racist but Zimmerman has a diverse ethnic background. If Zimmerman is "white" then so is Barrack Obama. You have a funny definition of reality also. You beleive the testimony of one witness completely and yet you ignored the ballistics evidence that shows that Martin was on top when Zimmerman fired. Martin was trying to smash his head into the pavement.
Even if Zimmerman was some white guy, it would still be racist to call him a cracker. I hate to break it to you but a lot of nations out there have white people which had absolutely nothing to do with the slave trade in the Americas. Even if his direct ancestors were slave owners or traders, it would still be racist to call him that.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
The problem is, your account of what happened is quite different from Zimmermans account of the events. According to Zimmerman he never confronted Martin and never moved close enough to scare him.
From the wiki about the case:
After telling the police dispatcher that Martin "ran",[183] Zimmerman left his vehicle to determine his location and ascertain in which direction Martin had fled.[177][184] The dispatcher asked if Zimmerman was following Martin, and Zimmerman replied "Yeah." Then the dispatcher said, "OK, we don't need you to do that." Zimmerman replied with "OK" and stated that Martin got away.[183] After a discussion about where Zimmerman would meet police, the call ended, and Zimmerman told investigators he was returning to his vehicle when Martin approached him from his left rear and confronted him
So, here we have your fantasies and Zimmermans account of the events. Can you please explain to me how your imagination proves Zimmerman is lying here? Remember, the only requirement is that Zimmermans explanation is reasonably plausible. Zimmerman doesn't have to prove he is not lying, but the prosecution basically would have had to. Again, if Zimmermans explanation is plausible then there is reasonable doubt and "not guilty" it is. So, the ball is on your half: Please provide some proof your account of the events is true and Zimmerman is lying. Unless you can show that proof, you have nothing but emotions and hot air, and that simply doesn't apply in a court of law.
If someone tries to beat me up and a punch him, that's not self-defense?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
we're talking about the Zimmerman case, right? Shooting of Trayvon Martin...b/c what you describe here is different completely:
and
Not what happened.
We **do not know** who laid hands on whom first and **all of you** are making assumptions about that.
We *do* know what injuries were sustained and it was *not* injuries that you get from having your head...what's the words you used..."slammed repeatedly"
Let me push you down on the concrete and lets see if you bang your head when you fall...
Then let me **repeatedly slam your head into the concrete** and we'll see if there is a, you know, medical difference...
cranial fractures, bruises, contusions...that's what **repeatedly slamming** a person's head into concrete with **intent to kill** looks like.
Zimmerman's wasn't...he's a wannabe cop who killed a boy in a fight because he wanted to act tough...
Zimmerman shot and killed a man for a scratch on the head, one that may have come from a fight he started.
Thank you Dave Raggett
Prosecution tried to prove just that in court and failed. Do you know something, they do not, or are you just repeating the unsubstantiated allegations you heard on TV?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Sorry, there's nothing irrational about it. Pounding the back of a guy's head against concrete is pretty much guaranteed to kill him if you are really serious, dead drunk, or seriously enraged. Most people have a strong inhibition they are not really conscious of against splitting a guy's head open like a melon, but in the heat of combat it's all too easy to find yourself staring at a spreading pool of blood on the sidewalk, wondering when you are going to wake up from what you just did in a bad dream. One that never ends.
There isn't anything "surprisingly resilient" about someone's head.
Seems you do not like the actual evidence. Creepy guy following you in a public place does not give you the right to jump him and attempt to pound his head into the ground. Would you say he had the right if it was an undercover cop? His only injuries were to his knuckles and the gunshot.vs your "creepy guy" took a hit to the face and a pounding into pavement that nearly killed him. Creepy guy called the cops before the incident, The kid had a cell phone but chose to defend himself? "Creepy guy" is not white but mixed Latino something the family choose not to mention as the case was not about race.
By your reasoning the pack of soccer moms would have been in the right killing the creepy grandpa at the playground. He did not have a child there and was reading a book sitting on a bench at the edge of the playground. The soccer moms were fearful for there kids, I as a large white man that frequented the park was asked to watch him by several. 45 minutes later when the soccer game finished his I assume grand children came over and everything was OK again in soccer mom land. Oddly I think a worst case of being polite but watchful is appropriate, Had I not been engrossed with playing with my son I might even have moved over and attempted to strike up a conversation.
Is Florida's stand your ground law imperfect it definitely is, Few of our gun laws make much sense.
As it stands justice has been done he was acquitted. Unless you know that they were bribed or some other malfeasance happened to taint that jury. This was the thing that Florida's law was supposed to protect him from and it failed miserably, If it were not such a high profile case the state could have easily bankrupted him trying to defend himself.
No sir I dont like it.
And a reasonable person armed with there wit, a cell phone, and the ability to outrun the middle aged man they had already evaded might just call thee cops and go home or back to the store whichever is closer. Personally would have loaded up the streaming app on my phone and had a conversation with the guy but I can not expect others to do the same.
No sir I dont like it.
Lets not call the boy innocent, plenty of evidence to the contrary that was not presented to the jury. If they kid has the pistol he apparently had access to I would suspect Zimmerman would be dead.
Seems you just don't like guns that's nice do not own one it's your right.
No sir I dont like it.
The prosecution was the first side to use a premptory challenge on a black person.
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.
He called the police and was informed to "observe and report" WHEN the suspect actually DID SOMETHING ILLEGAL.
He didn't CALL IN an illegal activity, before GETTING OUT of his (safe) truck and cornering the kid to prevent the kid from "getting away".
THAT is the problem, a private citizen has NO RIGHTS to prevent "getting away" on their own outside their immediate home. Zimmerman clearly didn't draw his gun and declare "citizens arrest" ... He went "cowboy" and DESERVED to get his face punched in.. And that's all the kid did was to PUNCH HIM without weapons to get away.
Had Zimmerman stayed in the truck and followed the kid "home" then he could have called police with a REAL INVESTIGATIVE TIP, and had the home searched for stolen stuff.
There is the part where he called the police and the recommended not leaving the vehicle OR confronting the suspect... So yeah, he had a good warning not to leave. The truck.
This is nothing about the kid being black, in many states, you'd have got the Second, possibly First for causing a confrontation after police told you not to.
This is why states pass "duty to retreat". If he wasn't actively preventing the kid from "getting away" the kid would not have attacked him. That's why you don't chase "criminals". If Zimmerman never left the truck, he could have followed the kid to where his parent was at, then called the cops. Job done.
The entire situation was brought about by Zimmerman refusing to follow instruction, and attempting to "catch the perp" on his own rather than call police... And that was because the police were called out so many times they stopped taking HIS CALLS.
You are looking for "menacing" like how most road rage starts with one side making threatening or offensive motions or words (not necessarily illegal on their own) at somebody.
If the story was a white woman with a CCW in the rain that didn't want to get in Zimmermans truck because he's a "raping Mexican"... So he followed her around the neighborhood and when he got out she blew him away!
Debate.
THAT is why this is bad law. This was not Zimmemans HOME, it was a PUBLIC street and other homes. There is no legal justification to "prevent a criminal from escaping"...
This basically means I can "pick a fight", lose, and then blow somebody away, wherever I'm at.
The proper response to Zimmerman's acquittal is outrage.
Why? How can you say that with such certainty? Were you there and know what happened?
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
A lunch mob? Strictly going by the law, he should be in jail. If we had Martin here, he would tell you how Zimmerman followed him around the neighborhood flashing lights and stuff, till he was cornered, so he jumped him first to get away from the guy driving the 4,000 pound weapon.
Fact is in most states this would be murder2 because you don't have a "right to deadly force" outside your home except in very narrow circumstances. In a "duty to retreat" state this would probably be murder1 because Zimmerman PURSUED somebody suspected to be criminal and he's not a cop.
Moral of this is that in Florida, always fight to KILL.. Whoever's LEFT is RIGHT... According to the law.
The law is usually clear about ADDING a deadly weapon to the situation. The "ground" is not a deadly weapon, so using a gun against somebody with just fists is not "self defense". Same with a bat or a crowbar, etc... The fight was on a public road so "castle doctrine" of defending your home does not apply... He had no right to escalate the fist fight to deadly weapons just because he was losing... People generally are not KILLED by only fists.
The media coverage did indeed suck! Just like the comments to this Slashdot article, they lacked insight, nuance, and honest reflection. What actually happened was this: Zimmerman, a Hispanic neighborhood watch captain, whose neighborhood had seen a consistent problem with crime, made some really poor choices, which resulted in a seventeen year old African American kid, who wasn't breaking any laws being killed. Did Zimmerman commit murder? I don't think so, however was he guilty of manslaughter...I think yes! I can imagine myself at different points in time being in either Zimmerman's or Martin's position. Zimmerman should have listened to the police dispatcher and left Martin alone. He had no business following and confronting Martin. He could have identified his self as the neighborhood watch captain and assured Martin that he wasn't trying to mug him or something. To be blunt, if I had been Martin, and some guy, who looked like Zimmerman got out of his car and began following me through a neighborhood which had seen crime problems, I would have assumed he was up to no good. Self defense in this case is a two way street. No one knows what really happened, how the altercation started. But it is clear to me that Zimmerman made a really poor choice, when he exited his car to follow Martin. So did he intentionally murder Martin? NO! Did Zimmerman make some really stupid decisions that resulted in someone's death, who didn't deserve to die, and who wasn't engaged in criminal activity? ABSOLUTELY!
He was already out of his vehicle when told they didn't need him to follow Martin.
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
Juror b-29 was described as black/hispanic.
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
Not on the street if he BELIEVED he was going to be attacked by motor vehicle. If Trevon BELIEVED he was going to be run over, he had every right to "lie in wait"... And when he did lie in wait for Zimmerman to GO AWAY (clearly meeting "duty to retreat") Zimmerman got OUT OF THE TRUCK to flush him out so he could run Martin over.
Except Martin is DEAD so we don't get his side.
Got any evidence to back up the accusation of bigotry? There's pretty good evidence that Zimmerman isn't particularly bigoted against blacks. I agree with the rest of the comment though.
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
Do you have any evidence whatsoever that Zimmerman started a fight? If so, the prosecution would like to talk to you, since they presented no such evidence. Following someone is not the start of a fight.
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
If Martin was hidden why didn't Zimmerman drive away? Continuing to follow Martin along the toad with his truck is "menacing".
Martin clearly HID so Zimmerman would move on. So Martin tried to LAWFULLY RETREAT from supposed danger. At that point, it doesn't matter if Martin robbed a bank, Zimmerman is not a POLICEMAN and had no right to pursue any suspect.
Martin is dead, Zimmerman should be in jail.
Ohai. It's called an opinion and it doesn't have to agree with what the opinion of six white women. I wasn't there, neither were they, and Zimmerman has no reason whatsoever to tell the truth about anything, and every reason to make shit up to cover for his murder. My opinion is based on the question "Is anyone in the world retarded enough to first run away from a man pursuing them (that part makes sense), then suddenly decide for no reason hey maybe I'll go kill that creepy ass cracker (this is Zimmerman's preposterous claim)?" No. Nobody would ever do that, ever, that makes no sense, so I reject it. The only story that makes sense is that a scared kid was pursued by an armed maniac through the night, feared for his life as anyone would, and tried to defend himself against a person who was quite obviously trying to kill him. He was almost successful in defending himself, but George couldn't stand to lose the fight he started, so he murdered the kid.
"Would you say he had the right if it was an undercover cop?"
Yes, but not a uniformed cop.
"your "creepy guy" took a hit to the face"
Yep, that's called "almost being successful defending yourself from your attacker, but getting murdered anyway".
I'm a gun owner, but not really an enthusiast. Martin was innocent because he hadn't committed any crimes, unlike his assailant and murderer Zimmerman.
I would certainly expect Martin to use a gun to defend himself against his pursuer, as he tried to do with his fists. Unfortunately the murderer had a superior weapon or else the criminal might be dead and the innocent boy might be the one enjoying his freedom.
"Stand your ground" actually DOES mean you have the right to attack first after being provoked. In your house it means you can just shoot somebody robbing you. on the street it means you dont have to "ask" to start a fight if you are threatened. Zimmerman was clearly "provoking" because he stopped, and armed, to look for Martin after he could not find him. He even called to report to the police... It was a setup to get to shoot somebody.
Had Martin waited another minute Zimmerman might have drive off... But Zimmerman was HUNTING him, far past a citizens "right" to community service.
The REAL question is what did Zimmerman THINK was going to happen when shot, fat him actually found tall fit kid? Even "citizens arrest" gives you no right to DETAIN somebody by FORCE. Zimmerman KNEW what was going to happen because he brought a GUN.
Zimmerman did not speak to his defense UNDER OATH.
Scary that you think simply following somebody in a public is reason to use deadly force. By your definition the street dealers should be able to shoot the Hasidic boys who non violently sit there watching taking down plate numbers taking pictures of them committing crimes? Maybe only if they get it wrong and they are not in fact committing any crimes?
Somebody following you like this is a civil issue document call cops get restraining order if required. If your that scared of the world seek professional help.
No sir I dont like it.
Zimmerman is not POLICE he had no legal right to pursue Martin, with a gun, on the public street after Martin did not want to be found. His only legal option was to drive away.
EVERY ACTION after that is Zimmerman's fault as he was not in danger and had deterred any criminal activity that night. So stupidity plus dead person equal manslaughter.
Do you have any evidence whatsoever that Zimmerman started a fight?
According to Myopic, following someone is starting a fight, so yes.
Why did the police REFUSE to come when Zimmerman called them?
Boy who cried "Wolf" much?
According to Zimmerman's "911" call, Martin had managed to hide from Zimmerman following him so Zimmerman stopped, and got out of the truck to look for him.
HIDING is pretty non-aggressive... Till he decided if Zimmerman was going to find him or not. It was up to Zimmerman to stop looking for the kid because he didn't want to be talked to... And had not committed any crime to that point that evening.
LOL jump a undercover cop and see how quickly your in jail for assaulting an officer.
If there was any evidence of Zimmerman physically attacking the kid before using his firearm it's a whole different story.
By your rules I get to attack and kill anybody that happened to park near me late and night and follows me to my car. Oddly that's not how a polite society functions we can not kill anybody we perceive as a potential threat.
No sir I dont like it.
Um, what? not even close.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
I think you might be missing his point. Jury selection is not a random sampling, nor is it supposed to be. That jury is supposed to be representative, and it was not.
I think what he meant was "what is the chance that two professional lawyers in a high profile case could go through voir dire and produce a jury this likely to cause later racially toned misapprehension?"
The prosecution should have ensured at least one man, at least one black person, and at least one person from that neighborhood on the jury. The defense should have had at least one man and at least one white person. As much as most Americans (I myself am one) will react poorly to that as if it's a form of discriminatory deck stacking, that's actually how the system is supposed to work; these are the people who, in the decision making process, are supposed to bring germane context to the proceeding. This is why jury nullification is ever a topic in America - in a "queer bashing" there should be a gay person there to explain to the others what it's like to be in the victim's shoes, etc.
StoneCypher is Full of BS
I wonder why you think this is new.
For context, these people generally do not make impacts on history, and are as such forgotten. Next generation won't know about most of our creeps, just like we don't know about most of the previous generation's creeps.
Similarly, people who think classic rock is better than today's music are forgetting everything but the really good stuff. When's the last time you listened to Mott the Hoople?
StoneCypher is Full of BS
Actually, in most of America it's quite illegal to follow people at night with a loaded firearm.
StoneCypher is Full of BS
I am not disputing you. However, I have never liked this; it legitimizes fear without evidence as a reason to attack, and lets after the fact judgment of others be an excuse for why.
Yes, I realize a hard line to be taken on this is impractical; how do you know whether you're stopping a rape or two consenting adults in edge play, etc.
But it still makes me uncomfortable, and seems almost certain in my opinion to cause far more harm than it prevents.
This should, in my opinion, fall under "I was being attacked and thought I was in self defense." That's really quite different than standing one's ground; Zimmerman was doing no such thing.
Someday, the tragic punchline to this sentence will be "Happy Halloween."
StoneCypher is Full of BS
It doesn't really matter if Zimmerman is credible.
Innocent until proven guilty. It's a pithy slogan until you have to apply it; then it's gut wrenching to stay austere.
Can you prove guilt?
StoneCypher is Full of BS
I'm unconvinced by your attempt to equate an armed maniac diligently hunting an innocent child through the gloom of night even after the child runs away from him with parking nearby.
"we can not kill anybody we perceive as a potential threat."
Not if you're black you can't. But if you're white-ish, you can kill someone just for eating skittles.
You should read the law about what is assault. Following someone is NOT assault, even the police officer who was a witness for the prosecution admitted as much.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Perhaps when you finish high school you will have learned some basic probability so you won't be amazed at such events.
Well, the problem with your figures is that you are assuming a randomly selected jury. That is not how it works, although your figures are perhaps representative of the pool of potential jurors. The defense and state lawyers have some flexibility to reject potential jurors that they feel would be biased. The state in this case would have wanted to reject white or hispanic men while the defense would probably want to reject blacks. Given those strategies, the likelihood of eliminating all blacks from sample of Florida's population if fairly high. I bet you could eliminate blacks form the jury in 90% or more of that state's trials if a lawyer was so inclined. Perhaps you should finish university and get some real life experience applying statistics in real life circumstances before you shoot off about your mastery of a subject.
You keep trying to bring race into it a Latino shot a black kid this matters why?
TM had no way to tell the man was armed, he was within a couple minutes walk of home. He had significant physical advantage over Zimmerman age and stature. To characterize him as an innocent child is disingenuous his school rerecords show a pattern of violent acts his phone shows access to firearms and a preoccupation for drugs. At the time of the shooting he had nearly killed Zimmerman. None of this is in question.
The physical evidence does not show anything to suspect Zimmerman initiated a physical confrontation. The kid did and died for his crime.
No sir I dont like it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extrajudicial_punishment are very common in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3rd_world
Casteism
The facts are that he was a neighborhood watch volunteer who ignored the 911 dispatcher
Actually, the facts suggest that Mr. Zimmerman obeyed the dispatcher.
chased down a kid because he thought he "looked suspicious".
One doesn't deserve to be assaulted and battered for chasing.
He then killed a kid who was armed with only a bag of skittles.
Ah, but the bag of Skittles bloodied and broke Mr. Zimmerman's nose, put five contusions on his face, and two lacerations on the back of his head.
If he would have followed the dispatcher's advice and waited for actual law enforcement - rather than taking on the role himself - that kid would still be alive.
If Mr. Martin had restricted himself to attempting murder of unarmed people then he would still be alive.
~Loyal
I aim to misbehave.
see, you're just wrong here:
I'm saying **no one knows** and neither party can prove who started the fight, but we know a random innocent person was killed.
Nope. I'm saying he has to prove his *affirmative defense*...that's legalspeak for proving he did it in self defense.
You can't just have the cops show up to a scene with one dead person and another just says "Eh, self defense" and call it a day! The police, you know, investigate the veracity of the 'self defense' claim.
That's the whole point, his claims that he had to kill Trayvon b/c of self defense are in question.
He could have said anything to the cops. He could have said it was an accident that the gun went off. That he really regretted it and it was unfortunately his last resort b/c the kid went postal with nerd rage. He could have not said anything at all.
He claimed a specific defense, that he needed lethal force in self defense. That's 'stand your ground' (which I don't want to debate the law at all).
Again that's where you are wrong. I'm trying to get you to look at it beyond this binary set of assumptions. The 'truth' in my mind exists in the sense that one sequence of events happened when Trayvon was shot. We all may use different language to describe what happened, and that language may signify serious actions involving Zimmerman's personal freedom.
It is a consensus, in this case of the jury, that decides. Language matters. The wording of the charges, the specifics of the instructions to the jury, etc.
I do not think 'justice' was done in the sense that the deciders (jury) seem to not have had a correct notion of the greatest source of tension between two opposing narratives...what I mean is, who started the fight and who was attacking whom.
They seem to have bought into the Defense's controversy over who was 'screaming for help' on the phone as an indication of who started the fight (or escalated it to physicality vs who was just defending themself).
The entire notion that the answer to that question can then determine 'who started it' or who is the attacker is wrong.
It was a false dichotomy. We can't know for sure who's voice that is, and even if we could, we'd still have *no idea* who started it....who was the instigator and attacker.
Which means that deciding if self defense is an affirmative defense in this case rests elsewhere. The 'truth' has to be uncovered elsewhere.
IMHO, the phone evidence (all the phone calls) and the defense's own testimony (wimpy at the gym) make it virtually certain that Trayvon entered the situation afraid and on the defense, unarmed, not looking for a fight, in a place he had every legal right to be.
Zimmerman entered with intent to confront and be an aggressor. By his own defense he was kind of a wannabe. Which to me sinks his claim of self defense.
To me that indicates Trayvon's killing was manslaughter.
Thank you Dave Raggett
As for Zimmerman's "racism", well, the following bit was published a year ago — certainly time enough for everyone to have caught-up by now:
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
The irony being that Martin could have been acting with the confines of "stand your ground". He could have felt that he was being stalked and fear for his life. Since he was unarmed, his only method of self defense was jumping him and trying to disable the stalker with whatever means he had at his disposal. The problem with cases like these being that the lone survivor can tell his own version of events.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
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.)
What I find troubling is not the verdict, where reasonable doubt makes enough sense to me, but how we as a society are framing potential confrontations.
You are presuming that Martin attacked Zimmerman. We do not know that. We only know there is reasonable doubt that Zimmerman started a fight that lead to tragedy. Even if if we did, does that resolve the scenario satisfactorily?
Martin has a right to stand his ground, as well. And the moral logic of Stand Your Ground laws implies that applying violence is a legally appropriate means of dealing with any "reasonable fear" of physical harm. Well, having an apparent stalker in the darkness seems like something that creates a reasonable fear to me.
Martin's best choice IMO was definitely to go home and call 911. No doubt there. But why exactly is not picking up a rock and crushing the skull of the person causing a reasonable fear not also an "appropriate" choice? The incentive is to escalate to lethal violence as quickly as possible, where being the only surviving witness to the whole debacle allows you to write the narrative that creates reasonable doubt.
IMO Stand Your Ground haunts the whole case because it implies that both Zimmerman and Martin were basically correct in their actions. It may not be Zimmerman's specific defense of pulling the trigger, but it colors all the actions of both parties before the shooting. That strangers in the night should go for blood is not the lesson a civilized society wants to endorse.
I wouldn't say all of the U.S. It is obvious to me it wasn't about racism but Zimmerman's machismo. It didn't turn into racism until the jury was assembled. In Texas someone starts a bar fight and gets killed the other guy will usually get man slaughter. If the person that started it killed the other it would be murder 2. Zimmerman would certainly be in prison if he was in Texas.
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
How can you conclude that Zimmerman would be in prison if he were black? Has this EXACT same situation with ALL the same particulars except race happened in a parallel universe with which you are familiar? Bottom line, there was NO evidence for a conviction, I don't give a shit what the race is. If he was convicted, odds are, the verdict would be overturned by a higher court because (and read carefully, this is important) THERE WASN'T ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT A CONVICTION. Also, if you are suggesting that we wrongly convict one man just because another man of a different race was wrongly convicted in the past, then fuck you, because that's the most egregious case of two-wrongs-don't-make-a-right I've ever fucking heard.
The media doesn't just cater, they have an agenda just like Sharpton and even the current administration. They out right lied, altered tapes of the 911 call to make it sound quite different. the govt also tried to influence the population. It was their goal to make sure Zimmerman was convicted, or that failing the population would not accept any other verdict. Their efforts have divided the population and set race relations back 50 tears, *or more* Their efforts have essentially made the name Zimmerman unsafe and he's unlikely to ever get a job, or feel safe again. Feel safe is too mild a statement as he *and his family* will never be safe again.and the news, particularly NBC are responsible for people still believing them and not paying attention to facts brought out at the trial where the prosecution even withheld evidence that would have aided Zimmerman. There's a drive to disbar to prosecution's one lawyer Zimmerman was found innocent, with overwhelming evidence. He may have made some unwise decisions, but Martin, *a football player*, attacked Zimmerman while Zimmerman was returning to his car, yet I see post after post (really outraged rants) on other blogs based on the false information put forth by NBC, the other networks, and govt agencies and not facts from the trial. It's bad enough that the networks did it, but our own government tried to influence the outcome. Not only that, but now they (the govt) are trying to pursue other routes to convict him., even requesting input from the public on the web. It's disgraceful conduct!
NBC, the Government, and maybe Sharpton should have to support Zimmerman for the rest of their natural lives "in style" . If those end prematurely then it should go to his heirs. These people and departments are guilty "in my estimation" of creating a climate and racial divide where he and his family will never be safe and they should have to pay for that. They inflamed a major portion of the population and have not been held accountable. They should be and in a major way.
Zimmerman's defense was that he acted in self-defense because Martin intended to kill him. There's no proof of that either. For all we know he could have just wanted to slap the cardboard cop around a bit.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."