George Zimmerman Acquitted In Death of Trayvon Martin

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

George Zimmerman Acquitted In Death of Trayvon Martin

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

theodp writes "Following nearly three weeks of testimony, a jury of six women in the George Zimmerman trial has found the former neighborhood watch volunteer not guilty of second-degree murder. He was also found not guilty of the lesser offense of manslaughter, which the jury also weighed."

43 of 1,737 comments (clear)

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

I'm amazed the Media didn't manage to convict him, despite how hard they tried.
1. Re:I'm amazed... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-13 15:11 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  I hope they will give him his job back as CEO of Men's Wearhouse now.
2. Re:I'm amazed... by girlintraining · 2013-07-13 15:18 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I'm amazed the Media didn't manage to convict him, despite how hard they tried.
  Everyone likes to talk about how they'd vote, or what they'd do. The media simply caters to that with show trials and "investigations", showing us distorted and idealized versions of this. It's the same reason why in the middle of a crisis, or when in the presence of a celebrity you'll find plenty of people whipping out their phones, and nobody actually doing anything useful. We feel important when we're around important people... or important events. We try to assure ourselves of our own relevance in whatever situation is placed in front of us. The terrorist attacks on 9/11 didn't directly affect more than a tiny, tiny fraction of the population, but everybody got emotionally involved in it, because it was spectacular, epic, and we wanted to insert ourselves into the story, the conversation, the dialogue. Show trials like this are based on this same emotional need, and the media is only too happy to indulge in it -- it sells more papers, more advertisement, etc.
  But the overwhelming majority of it is total shit, and frankly harmful to our way of life. Whether Zimmerman is guilty or not, he'll never have another job. He'll always be "that guy that got away with murder", irrespective of the actual, judiciary merit of that position. There have been many people, for example, accused of rape, and were later proved not just not guilty, but totally and irrefutably innocent of the charges. Their lives were still over all the same.
  The founding fathers knew this -- that's why they advocated jury trials in the first place. It was an attempt to remove this mob mentality from the judicial process, and as a balance against populism swaying the government and giving in to the transient emotional outbursts of the crowd, the mob, the public. I don't think, if they were alive today in the age of the internet and instant communication, they would still advocate that these trials be open to the public... I believe they would have wanted a person who, if found not guilty, could go back to the life they had and the community would treat them no differently. Conversely, the country was still a "big" place, in terms of social circles -- someone convicted and having served their time, could move somewhere else, start a new life, and leave their mistake(s) behind them. Neither option is possible nowadays...
  Today, our justice system may still beat back the mob mentality and the public's need for vengance, and the corruption of the media, but once a person leaves the system -- guilty or innocent, their lives are irrevocably changed. And rarely is it for the better.
  
  --
  #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
3. Re:I'm amazed... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-13 15:32 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Know how many white people are killed each year by black people? How many robberies? Why does race never come up in any of these crimes, but comes up every time a white person does anything to a black person? (And I'm not white).
4. Re:I'm amazed... by ebno-10db · 2013-07-13 15:43 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The founding fathers knew this -- that's why they advocated jury trials in the first place
  That and the fact that it had been part of the common law for centuries.
  
  I don't think, if they were alive today in the age of the internet and instant communication, they would still advocate that these trials be open to the public
  On the contrary. The reason for requiring that criminal trials be public is to help ensure that they're not totally corrupt.
5. Re:I'm amazed... by fredprado · 2013-07-13 15:45 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Lets see how misguided you were by the news. The woman in question:
  
  - was previously arrested for domestic violence and no complaint was ever registered against her husband.
  - went out of the room and into the garage to get a gun and got back to fire. She didn't run, she didn't lock herself in a room and called the police. And her husband stayed at the room and didn't follow her.
  She fired several shots at arbitrary directions that could not only have hurt her family as could have hurt or killed innocent people in the neighborhood.
  
  No, it wasn't about race or gender, it was just a crazy, violent and irresponsible woman playing the domestic violence card to falsely accuse her husband in the hope of getting a free out-of-jail card. An attempt that fortunately failed.
6. Re:I'm amazed... by Jiro · 2013-07-13 15:46 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Real life isn't the moivies; warning shots are generally illegal. You can only use lethal force if you have justification for killing someone; if you fire a warning shot, that's still lethal force (since a warning shot can kill someone, though it's less likely), but the fact that you fired it as a warning shows that you didn't believe killing was justified.
7. Re:I'm amazed... by Scarletdown · 2013-07-13 16:02 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  What are you talking about? LA burned from the Rodney King case, not OJ Simpson. I know, because I lived in LA at the time of the riots and the OJ trial.
  Try to get your facts straight.
  I thought it sounded like the GP was referring to the wrong case. Good to know I wasn't just imagining it.
  I propose that sort of error be dubbed the "When the Germans Bombed Pearl Harbor Fallacy."
  
  --
  This space unintentionally left blank.
8. Re: I'm amazed... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-13 16:21 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  I'm amazed how uninformed you are..... Both witnesses for the defence and the pathologist testified that GZ was on the bottom. CNN discussed this extensively as well. I have no axe to grind either way, but I do get annoyed at people who have no clue.
9. Re: I'm amazed... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-13 16:24 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Good example of the 'news' warping the views. GZ defense claims he did not continue following Martin and no witness offered any evidence that he did. Rhetorical claims were made in the opening and closing statements by the prosecution that he did but no evidence by any of the wittiness suggested he did. This is a good example of why he was guilty in public opinion but the Prosecution lost in the trial.
10. Re:I'm amazed... by Mspangler · 2013-07-13 16:28 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  "We know for a fact that he followed Martin,"
  Stupid mistake #1. Zimmerman got out of the car. If Zimmerman had stayed in the car, then either Martin would have kept walking home, or if he had chosen to attack, would have had to kick in a window to get to Zimmerman, and there would have been no doubt about Zimmerman's self-defense claim.
  Stupid mistake #2. Martin did not just keep walking. If Martin had kept on walking regardless of Zimmerman getting out of the car, Martin would have either gotten home safely, or Zimmerman would have shot him in the back, and there would be no doubt about his guilt.
  What is clear is that at some point, for some reason, Martin turned and attacked. Was he a 17 year old gangster wannabe looking for some street cred, and beating up "a creepy cracker" seemed like a way to get it? Did Zimmerman start yelling out racial slurs, goading Martin beyond the point of reason? We don't know, and there was no evidence either way that could convince the jury. So they were left with reasonable doubt. And if you have reasonable doubt, you are required to acquit.
11. Re:I'm amazed... by adolf · 2013-07-13 16:34 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I've always believed that one should not ever brandish a firearm in a confrontation unless they're prepared to use it to cause harm.
  Warning shot? No. If you think you can fire a warning shot and "scare someone away," then you've still got other less-lethal methods of handling the situation. (And if nothing else, it wastes ammunition.)
  Drawing a firearm is the very last resort. And once you've drawn that weapon weapon, always fire at the person you are in confrontation with (with intent to, you know, actually hit them) -- not in random directions.
  (The reason: If you don't intend to shoot the person, don't be waving a gun around. It isn't safe. A gun is not a threat, nor is it a scare tactic. It's a goddamn killing machine. Either use it properly and swiftly, or leave it alone.)
  
  --
  Kid-proof tablet..
12. Re:I'm amazed... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-13 16:43 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  George Zimmerman:
  - police record, including being accused of domestic violence, resisting arrest, and battery of law-enforcement officer
  You mean: battery of a plain-clothed person who started a bar fight and only identified himself as a law-enforcement officer after the fight and you mean resisting a fight that was reclassified as an arrest attempt only after the instigator later identified himself as an officer?
  A more reasonable person would call that a history of self-defense. "Accused of ... Accused of ... Accused of ... " is bullshiat intimidation tactics.
13. Re:I'm amazed... by cold+fjord · 2013-07-13 16:44 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  1. Evidence about Martin's background would help the jury assess his character and might speak to his motivation. It looks like they were barely able to get in the results of the toxicology report that showed Martin still had traces of marijuana in his blood.
  2. Zimmerman wasn't aggressive in getting out of his car. If he had closed the distance and attacked Martin, that would be aggression, assault. Martin was the one that attacked Zimmerman. He was on top of him throwing MMA style punches when he was shot.
  3. "Stand your ground" was never a part of the case, ever. It was part of inflamed commentary. Zimmerman didn't attack Martin.
  Race had nothing to do with the case. It was simple self-defense. Martin attacked Zimmerman by surprise, started beating his head against the curb, and was on top of his throwing MMA type punches. Zimmerman's life was in immediate peril, but he was able to pull his gun and shoot Martin. To the extent that race played a part, it was generally working against Zimmerman in that many commentators soft pedaled, concealed, or ignored derogatory information about Martin, as well as exculpatory information about Zimmerman. NBC doctored audio to make Zimmerman appear racist. The media kept referring to Zimmerman as white, when he is Hispanic with a black grandfather (or maybe great-grandfather). Despite the fact that pictures of the grown Martin were available, including ones showing some more troubling aspects of his life, the media kept showing pictures of him when he was much younger and innocent appearing. The media downplayed Martin's troubled history, and participation in fight club type activity, and his interest in martial arts. It goes on, and on, and on. Probably because of Zimmerman's name, the media was out for a lynching of what they thought was a white guy that had killed a young black man. They often got things wrong, and stirred the pot. Even the US Justice department engaged in some troubling behavior.
  In Audio Recording, Department of Justice Official Urges Protesters to Seek ‘Justice’ for Trayvon Martin
  Based on your flavor of your questions I have the sense that you may have gotten most of the commentary on this case from a particular slice of the web that hasn't always provided good information on this. My suggestion is that you do some reading at this site Legal Insurrection. It has some interesting and informed commentary, by actual lawyers, on the case. Fair warning - you may not like what you read, but it is likely to be much more legally accurate and closer to the truth than what it sounds like you have been reading. The truth doesn't always taste good when it doesn't fit our expectations.
  
  --
  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
14. Re:I'm amazed... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-13 16:57 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Read the trial transcript, it’ll be clearer. In short:
  1) The defense claimed that Zimmerman was attacked by Martin, and got (more or less) badly beaten. Based on the fact that there were no other wounds on Martin other than the gunshot, and Zimmerman had lots of damage to the head, I tend to believe that. (Of course, I’m not a doctor and I haven’t seen either, I’m just reporting what evidence and testimony was presented during the trial, which is what the jury bases their decision on.) They also claim Martin saw Zimmerman’s gun while beating him, reached for it, and that was when Zimmerman shot him, while being pinned under Martin. Based on what I’ve seen of the trial, I’m pretty sure about the second part; the first is of course convenient, so believe what you will. The prosecution argued that Zimmerman was a wannabe vigilante, and that Martin was an innocent child. If you’re the jury and you believe that, you will not believe Zimmerman. Therefore, it’s relevant to show that Martin was not *just* an innocent child, and in fact was both able and inclined to violence, and from what I’ve heard about the cell’s contents it seems it could be pertinent for the defense. (The phone data wasn’t in the trial, so I can’t judge if in fact it tells anything about Martin. But I can see why it could be relevant.)
  2) I becomes an aggressive act when you assault them, of course. Now, I wasn’t there, and in fact there were no witnesses until after the altercation started, so I can’t tell which of the two attacked. Martin of course cannot testify, and Zimmerman claims he was attacked while returning to the car (which, according to him, he left to find out where Martin was going). Note that the guy was part of the neighborhood watch, and there had been quite a few break-ins in the neighborhood, so it is justifiable to at least investigate where the “suspicious guy” went. (Regardless of why he thought him suspicious.) Of course the evidence is not enough to determine with certainty what went on, but there’s no evidence (that I saw) of lying, either.
  3) No law is required to stand your ground when someone pursues you. (It doesn’t even make sense, if you’re pursued, it means you’re already leaving or running.) That law gives you the right to fight back when attacked. If in fact it was Martin that was attacked, he had right to defend himself. (I assume he wasn’t trespassing, since he was visiting someone in the same neighborhood.) I don’t know for sure who attacked who, but what evidence do you have that Zimmerman initiated the fight?
  * * *
  As I haven’t been there, here’s what I saw in the transcripts. The police received the call from Z. Z told the operator M was leaving, and the operator asked in what direction. (Z claims he left his car to check, lost M in the dark, turned back towards the car, and was assaulted by M by surprise. Which at least is plausible.) Apparently M was talking on the phone with a friend at the time, but other than telling her a “creepy ass cracker” was following him, and that “she thought race was an issue because Martin told her he was being followed by a white man”, which to me sounds like the race issue was the other way around. (Note that the media made a lot of noise about Z telling the operator M was black, when in fact the full recordings show that the operator clearly asked if the guy was white, black or Hispanic. Z did not volunteer that information until asked. And he actually said “He looks black”.)
  About this time several neighbors called 911 because there were screams for help and sounds of struggle. (Each side claimed the screams were theirs, though M’s dad changed his mind a couple of times.) Nobody intervened, but one (male) neighbor saw the scuffle (not very well, *everyone* claims it was dark and I don’t think he got close; he testified that he saw (based on clothin
15. Re:I'm amazed... by Torodung · 2013-07-13 16:59 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Two words explain this attitude historically: "Secret Tribunal." (You can insert the word "military" if you'd prefer three words).
  What would have them spinning at 5000 rpm in their graves is Guantanamo Bay, not this trial and public reaction. A public trial by jury is exactly what they designed, and the country was so small and insular at that point that reputations could be ruined far more thoroughly than in today's overpopulated, urban, and largely faceless culture. They absolutely expected mob mentality to be a result, which was why so many of them were members of secret societies. Privacy to speak one's mind may never have occurred to them as a possibility without that. The possibility of a public trial ruining someone's reputation was probably expected, in my considered opinion.
  I don't have any primary sources to back that up though.
16. Re:I'm amazed... by Wonko+the+Sane · 2013-07-13 17:09 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Are you actually interested in facts? If so, watch this video. Otherwise, just keep trolling.
17. Re:I'm amazed... by garyebickford · 2013-07-13 17:16 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Suggestion: before deciding, read the court transcript and review the evidence. That will give you a better, but still insufficient understanding of the case as presented to the jury - which has very little to do with the case as presented to us, the great unwashed.
  Having said that, and IANAL, but much of the relevant facts (the details) haven't really made it into the media. Apparently, according to his statement to police, at the time of the actual conflict, Zimmerman was no longer following Martin (had he lost him?) and was returning to his car. Martin jumped out of some bushes (apparently he circled back?), and the fight started. The fact that Z was initially following M is only somewhat relevant - it goes to Z's state of mind. AFAIK, unless there's a court order or something, it's not illegal to follow someone around.
  The 'Stand your ground' law was never part of this except in the media. It was not applicable to either party.
  Martin was being portrayed as an innocent young naive boy who happened to be out shopping. His background and recent history (showing apparent pot smoking, racist remarks and some other things I forget) could have helped show that he was actually capable of attacking Zimmerman. Since that was never brought into court, it can't be used as a political tool to argue that Zimmerman got off - the prosecution was given every opportunity to railroad Zimmerman (regardless of one's opinion of the cast, had Zimmerman been convicted the case would have been tossed on appeal due to the judge's and prosecutor's actions). So Zimmerman was acquitted even despite having every possible weapon thrown at him.
  WRT reporting, NBC actually cut Zimmerman's 911 call to make it seem like he was making racist remarks - I am fully expecting ZImmerman to sue NBC, and settle for something in 7 figures. Martin was shown on TV multiple times as a cute 9- or 10-year old. The race thing was amplified over and over again - Zimmerman was repeatedly described as a 'white hispanic' - whatever that is. As the old adage says, "if it bleeds it leads" - the media are in the business of selling eyes to the advertisers, and sometimes they go to far. Also, if you've ever had the media report on something that you are personally familiar with, I'll be willing to bet that you said they got it all wrong. Extrapolate, and you'll note that they get it all wrong most of the time. Most media people these days are undereducated journalism majors, who can only be described as 'the naive man on the street, expressing ignorant amazement at the goings on around them." IMHO, of course. :D
  
  --
  It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
18. Re:I'm amazed... by sumdumass · 2013-07-13 18:02 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Assaulting a person is not really defending yourself unless you have reason to believe you are about to be assaulted yourself.
  The prosecution claimed Zimmerman had a duty to retreat but that same duty applied to Martin too. Martin had a phone, he could have called the police and said someone is following me. He could have tried to lose Zimmerman, but instead, he went to confront the cracker ass cracker or whatever racial slur his friend he was on the phone with said he said before hanging up to put Zimmerman in his place.
  From what I can tell with the court testimony, Martin attacked Zimmerman because he was following him. Martin was never defending himself. It also appears that Martin went out of his way to find Zimmerman and surprise him as Zimmerman lost sight of him just before Martin came from behind. That is all supported by court testimony. Martin simply was not defending himself.
19. Re:I'm amazed... by mi · 2013-07-13 18:45 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I'm not saying there arent issues
  Oh, there most certainly are issues! Because Gitmo was made into such a hot potato during the previous presidency, the current President, evidently, banned putting new detainees in there... Guess, which of the two alternatives to such detentions did he pick? Right, kill them on the spot — no judge, no jury.
  That his supporters, after condemning Bush for the mere detentions, are a-Ok with the extra-judicial killings, is really telling any observer everything one needs to know about their attention spans. That the President is ordering the killings for political expediency (so as not to be blamed for Gitmo's existance much), never mind the possibility, however slight, that a few of them are innocent, is telling the same observer about his values and morals. That he does it despite the intelligence value destroyed by each killing, expands nicely on his priorities.
  To sum up: the "village idiot" and "Constitution-shredder" Bush presided over Milosevic and Hussein being delivered to justice. Harvard-educated lawyer and Nobel Peace Prize-winner Obama presided over bin Laden and Qaddafi shot on the spot...
  
  --
  In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
20. Re:I'm amazed... by Lakitu · 2013-07-13 20:41 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The prosecution claimed Zimmerman had a duty to retreat but that same duty applied to Martin too. Martin had a phone, he could have called the police and said someone is following me. He could have tried to lose Zimmerman, but instead, he went to confront the cracker ass cracker or whatever racial slur his friend he was on the phone with said he said before hanging up to put Zimmerman in his place.
  This is something it seems like most people are missing out on in their rush to polarize.
  Many people are trying to dismiss Zimmerman's duty to retreat by saying it was lawful or he had good intentions or whatever, but the fact is he was following the kid for dubious reasons, got lost, and then was ambushed by the person he was following. He should never have allowed himself to be in that situation, and he should have been prepared for Martin to verbally confront him.
  Lots of people dismiss Martin's actions because they feel like Zimmerman's behavior was unwarranted, starting with following him. But that doesn't excuse his confrontation of Zimmerman.
  The fact is, both of them made dumb mistakes that night, and both of them have paid for it. It will always seem unfair, because Martin was only 17 and, while he should have known better, it's understandable that he didn't know better. And he paid for it with his life.
  Zimmerman's life is changed forever because of this, too, but it will never really seem fair because he's incompetent and an idiot who definitely should have known better and got off light compared to Martin.
  The whole thing is just a tragedy that didn't need to happen.
21. Re:I'm amazed... by erroneus · 2013-07-14 00:22 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I think one thing is coming from this trial and that's the attention black racism has been getting. In watching videos on aftermath, I saw black protesters responding to white people holding signs which read "creepy assed cracker is a racist slur" or something to that effect. The response was screaming out cracker-this and cracker that followed by chanting that they are not racist.
  I think the attention to the matter is and will continue to grow. There is no "making up" for something no one alive today is responsible for. I think it has been amply demonstrated it is behavior which leads to mistrust and even fear among people far more than racial appearance. Of course, bad experiences with a person of a particular genetic lineage, but that is most certainly true on both sides -- Al Sharpton is a dinosaur and a profiteer who sees a racist in every white person and earns a LOT of money from his insistence that there is. But he fails to recognize his own people are the current cause of any fear and mistrust.
  And younger people today? I'm actually a little scared for them at the moment. My son has lots of black friends and he is very, very mixed himself. He trusts his black friends in every way. And that's great. I have met them and most of them are pretty genuine people. (most, but not all) Indeed they think the whole racism issue is ridiculous -- an item for history books. And yet, there is no shortage of violent threats out there. There isn't much noise from the KKK these days, but there is certainly a lot of noise about killing white babies from the new black panther party. These threats are real and they aren't driven by any strong or particular "anti-black" sentiment or activity.
  Seriously, these black racists are scary to me. They, like the US government, are fighting a nebulous war on a vapor enemy.
22. Re:I'm amazed... by modmans2ndcoming · 2013-07-14 03:09 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  1) Constitutional rights have nothing to do with how any of those 4 men were adjudicated.
  2) the local politics of both Melisovic and Hussein were important to the reason to bring them to trial.
  3) Qaddafi was killed by the rebels. The US was no on he ground in Libya or even running air operations (the French were running the show) so Obama has no responsibility there.
  4) Bin Laden? Really? It was a military operation in a hostile zone in a foreign country and everyone has been trying to kill the guy since 9/11. Bush would have killed him too.
23. Re:I'm amazed... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-14 03:53 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  As there more than five times as many whites than blacks in the US, this means a) that blacks are much more likely to become murder victims, and b) that blacks are much more likely to (commit | be convicted of) murder.
24. Re:I'm amazed... by AthanasiusKircher · 2013-07-14 04:54 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  If you read the numbers, it must be pretty close to equal: 49% of murder victims are white, 49% of murder victims are black, and the remaining 2% are of other racial backgrounds. Among murderers, 51% are black, 46% are white, and the remaining 3% are of other racial backgrounds.
  If you're going to quote "actual statistics," you need to know how to use them. These stats are relatively useless when making comparisons between murder rates among races, since they don't take into account the actual population size of various races.
  The white population is roughly 6 times the size of the black population in the U.S. (72.4% vs. 12.6% vs. 15% other). Using these statistics (which admittedly are 2010, instead of 2009, which is the year of your crime stats), we get an estimate of actual rates within the population:
  Out of every 1,000,000 people, 29.4 of them will be white murder victims, 168.4 will be black, and 7.8 will be other. Out of every 1,000,000 people, 23.6 of them will be white murderers, 151.3 will be black, and 5.3 will be other.
  To break this down by victim:
  (Please note that the following stats given much lower rates than above, because BOTH offender and victim race are identified in only about half of the statistics given in the source.)
  If the victim is white, per million people, 13.2 murderers will be white, 2 will be black, and 0.2 will be other.
  If the victim is black, per million people, 5.4 murderers will be white, 66.9 will be black, and 0.3 will be other.
  If the victim is other, per million people, 1.1 will be white, 0.6 will be black, and 2.2 will be other.
  
  That's not to say that murder is OK, but it's hardly a situation in which black people are murdering white people left and right while white people are just innocent victims.
  Agreed. However, when you compare actual murder rates rather than percentages from unequal population sizes, you can actually get an answer to the question you want. Basically, if all races were equally distributed, a black-murdering-white crime is about 2.6 times as likely as a white-murdering-black crime.
  Of course that isn't the real shocking figure here. The shocking figure should be that black-on-black murders are 5 TIMES more prevalent than white-on-white murders. So, the conclusion shouldn't be that blacks are murdering innocent white people, but rather that the murder rate is a lot greater among blacks in general, and when that violence spreads outside the black community, white people are involved somewhat more often... compared to when white violence is perpetrated on blacks.
  (I'm not trying to make any sort of racial judgment here at all, just to interpret the statistics you quoted fairly. Honestly, all murders are terrible, and we need to work to curb all of this violence... regardless of the races of victim or perpetrator.)
25. Re: I'm amazed... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-14 07:11 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  That was because she went to HIS house, and actually left the house to go get the gun....
Is this a hopeless request? by mtrachtenberg · 2013-07-13 15:01 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.
1. Re:Is this a hopeless request? by nadaou · 2013-07-13 15:08 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  > Everyone feels they are right, and everyone feels strongly.
  > Is it possible for commenters to keep that in mind?
  I'm guessing "no".
  
  --
  ~.~
  I'm a peripheral visionary.
How many people are surprised at this verdict? by I'm+New+Around+Here · 2013-07-13 15:02 · Score: 5, Insightful

I'm not surprised that the final verdict is not guilty on any count, since the state didn't show proof of guilt.
I am surprised the jury members didn't cave in to the threats of violence and find him guilty of the manslaughter that was thrown in at the end.
Good for them for doing their jobs.

--
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Re:Does anyone know by Neppy · 2013-07-13 15:04 · Score: 5, Informative

Stand your ground was not used as a defense in this case so no relation at all.
Due Process by nebrfan · 2013-07-13 15:09 · Score: 5, Insightful

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

Anyone who followed this trial in even a cursory manner and disagrees with a not guilty verdict based on the evidence presented by the state should spend some time looking in the mirror. The level of cognitive bias required to believe that the state proved murder or manslaughter beyond a reasonable doubt is staggering. Heck, the state came closer to proving self defense beyond a reasonable doubt than they did to proving their own case.
Look, one need not believe that Zimmerman is a good guy or that any of his decisions were wise or even competent in order to understand that the state did not prove their case. He can be a bad guy and have done bad things and still be not guilty of the crime charged.
Presumption of Innocence by Bob9113 · 2013-07-13 15:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

I think it boils down to presumption of innocence. There was not enough concrete evidence of exactly what happened to find him guilty. I suspect he committed manslaughter, and that Trayvon escalated the situation, and that under our legal system Zimmerman should not be found guilty. Given the uncertainty, it is an accurate reflection of our preference to let a guilty man go free than to convict an innocent man.

--
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Political agendas by Dan+East · 2013-07-13 15:31 · Score: 5, Interesting

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

Defending himself from an armed stranger following him...now there's your problem.
If you walk somewhere in a public space - I can follow you. I can even ask you a question. Those are legal acts, even if you don't like me, or don't want to talk to me. (Also, Martin had no idea Zimmerman was armed. If Zimmerman was running around with a brandished weapon out there, it would have been some serious legal bad news for him. Seriously...even if you have no interest in it - take a CCW course sometime to familiarize yourself with the laws.)
Now if I am following you and trying to find out who you are or what you're doing - that's legal. If you attack me for it - it's not. At that point I need to either get away from that situation (recommended) or defend myself (as a last resort - as I might be pinned to the ground, etc.)
This case isn't difficult. The police didn't even feel that there was enough evidence to arrest him that night. This isn't the first time someone has ever shot another person in self defense. If someone defends themselves in the event of a physical attack, should they go to prison for winning the fight? Seriously...how does this work for you?
Is a woman who is raped and murdered morally superior to one who explains to the nice officer how the gentleman came to get a bullet in his head?
Not all show trials go the way the media by Shivetya · 2013-07-13 15:50 · Score: 5, Insightful

or officials want. Juries tend to see through the attempts to impose social justice over legal justice. This trial became a farce when the prosecution was allowed to change their charge on the fly, worse they almost got totally into silly land on trying to change up the charges.
Now comes the fun part, will the Feds get involved directly and attempt a hate crime charge?
Zimmerman was an over reactive wanna be cop that created a situation that got out of his control. Frankly if Tray had survived I would have expected him to use the same defense. Still witnesses and crime scene evidence were not in favor of the prosecution and the local sheriff was right in not trying to field a case that could not be one.
We the people won, both Zimmerman and Martin lost. We won because the law was upheld. Martin paid the ultimate price and Zimmerman will pay the rest of his.
The tragedy beyond this one death is the number of people who died and their cases will never be given the same attention.

--
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Re:And the blacks lose again by dugancent · 2013-07-13 16:07 · Score: 5, Informative

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
Also by Sycraft-fu · 2013-07-13 16:58 · Score: 5, Informative

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

He doesn't know. sadly in today's age, anything you don't agree with is racist. It's because they cannot support their opinions with facts and reality and need to limit the conversation to menial flaws of the person you disagree with instead of the context of the actions or disagreement.
there is a growing group of people who simply cannot debate ideas and have to shut the debate down in order to preserve their view points. The GP is one of them.
Doesn't matter by frovingslosh · 2013-07-13 18:22 · Score: 5, Interesting

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

his *life was not in danger*
Maybe your life wouldn't be in danger if you got your brain smashed on the pavement, but that's not the case for most people.
-jcr

--
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Re:not surprised at racism and naive WASPs by Ecuador · 2013-07-14 02:24 · Score: 5, Informative

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