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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Remember that they looked for people who hadn't followed the leadup to this a ton. Not everyone gives a fuck what is in the media. Also it turns out in most cases jurors do a reasonable job of following what the judge tells them. The judge tells them what evidence they can consider, and what is required for a charge, and they usually listen to that, at least reasonably well.
The system is far from perfect, but they really do try and get people who have little to no knowledge about a case beforehand, and they try to instruct those people as to what is and is not to be considered.
Also the prosecution screwed up their case at several points, and that makes a big difference as well.
Remember that while the rest of the world (that was interested) was following the media accounts, the jurors were following only what happened in the courtroom.
or officials want. Juries tend to see through the attempts to impose social justice over legal justice. This trial became a farce when the prosecution was allowed to change their charge on the fly, worse they almost got totally into silly land on trying to change up the charges.
Now comes the fun part, will the Feds get involved directly and attempt a hate crime charge?
Zimmerman was an over reactive wanna be cop that created a situation that got out of his control. Frankly if Tray had survived I would have expected him to use the same defense. Still witnesses and crime scene evidence were not in favor of the prosecution and the local sheriff was right in not trying to field a case that could not be one.
We the people won, both Zimmerman and Martin lost. We won because the law was upheld. Martin paid the ultimate price and Zimmerman will pay the rest of his.
The tragedy beyond this one death is the number of people who died and their cases will never be given the same attention.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
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!
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/
The most striking thing to me has always been that both actors would have been within their rights, under "Stand Your Ground," to not run away if attacked by the other.
FTFY. The "Stand Your Ground" law does not allow one to attack; it just allows one to not run away.
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
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.)
So the black woman on the jury was a closet racist? How did that help Zimmerman?
When you cant win, ad hominem.
He is innocent.
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.
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.
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.
Juries can be very fickle. Anyone who has done enough trials warns their clients that there is an element of pure unpredictable chance in every trial, and while the odds might be good (or bad), you can always still lose (or win). Eventually, every attorney is going to win a case they should by all rights lose, and lose a case they really ought to win, based on nothing but getting really lucky, or really unlucky.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
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.
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.
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
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.
his *life was not in danger*
Maybe your life wouldn't be in danger if you got your brain smashed on the pavement, but that's not the case for most people.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
If you're in a fight as an adult you fight to kill and let fly with everything you have. This might be IT.
You want to dance? Take a salsa class.
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
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.
Since when does a teenager need a "good reason" to be walking along the street?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
If Martin had known Zimmerman had a gun, would he have attacked him?
If Martin knew Zimmerman had a gun and feared getting shot in the back, attacking him was even more insane, he would have to close with a man who could whip out a gun in a split second and fill him with lead (WHICH DID NOT HAPPEN).
If Martin did not know Zimmerman had a gun, him attacking him is a clear case of aggression with murderous intent considering the near outcome of the fight as in if Zimmerman had NOT shot Martin, would Martin have stopped beating his victims head into the ground BEFORE he died or after?
To many people assume that because Martin was the one who ended up death, Zimmerman was the only one with murder on the mind that night.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Zimmerman's life was not in danger, and defending yourself is *never* an excuse to harm someone with impunity
We don't know everything about what happened that night. We never will. There are a few things we do know however...
The reason this got to the point it did was because Zimmerman was a jerk, a bigoted loser and a moron. Neither of which are crimes. The trigger situation is that Zimmerman has profiled Martin and is following him around, which is not illegal either. From the evidence we do know that Martin at some point jumped Zimmerman. It seems unlikely he'd do that if facing a gun, so it is quite reasonable to conclude that the illegalities in this matter was instigated by Martin. In other words, it appears that Martin jumped Zimmerman and started to pummel him. A broken nose, a cut to the back of the head etc on Zimmerman seems to be ample evidence for this. Some time after that Zimmerman shoots Martin. He claims self defense. If his head was being hit against something hard, that is reasonable.
So, what are we left with? Have we proven that what Zimmerman says is correct? Not even close. There is no possible way for us to know from the evidence that Zimmerman is telling the truth. That Martin jumped him and he feared for his life. We can not know, and we do not need to. Zimmermans account, and the supporting forensic data is plenty enough to say there is reasonable doubt though. If you say there is no reasonable doubt in this case, you are a moron. If there is reasonable doubt, there is no way the jury can do anything but acquit.
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.
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.
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.
This isn't a damned action movie. If someone is banging your head against the pavement you should have every right to believe your life is in danger.
The justice system ran its course. The protests resulted in a prosecution that never would have happened otherwise. A jury hand picked by the prosecution (6 women, 5 of whom are mothers) was unanimous in deciding the state failed to prove either second degree murder or manslaughter. It HAD to be an acquittal from the beginning because there was no way the Special Prosecutor could prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. And that is the burden the state had to meet. Anything other than an acquittal could only have been explained as people following their emotions and not the rule of law (which saves us from these sometimes). One of our justice system's great weaknesses is actually its greatest strength, it is designed in such a way that it would rather acquit 10,000 guilty men than convict 1 innocent person.
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.
if you're carrying a loaded weapon, and you enter into a fistfight, then your life is in danger.
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.
Do you even lift?
-- Using the preview button since 2005
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
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
No. People that jump other people and start wailing on them MMA style (while being chastised by their friends on a text message for "fighting too much" at the same moment) forfeit their right to life when they nearly kill someone.
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
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.
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
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Actually, in most of America it's quite illegal to follow people at night with a loaded firearm.
StoneCypher is Full of BS
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.