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.
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.
Stand your ground was not used as a defense in this case so no relation at all.
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.
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
It is on slashdot because it is a conservative victory, and this is a conservative web site. Any news that proclaims victory for conservatives - even if they are a loss for justice itself - automatically make the front page. Expect to see a front page story here when the Texas governor signs the latest anti-abortion bill as well.
This is not a conservative victory. This is the court doing its job to find the truth and making rulings on the law and the disposition of alleged criminals.
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!
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
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.
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.
Your premise is wrong. Forensics showed that Zimmerman was on the ground and Martin was bending over him when Martin was shot.
Who instigated the confrontation isn't relevant to the question of self-defense. You can start a fight and still claim self-defense when the other person turns the conflict into a lethal conflict.
Furthermore, Martin might well have been able to claim self-defense as well if he had shot Zimmerman; claims of self-defense aren't mutually exclusive.
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."
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.
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.
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
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
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.