Zimmerman Case

[Siggie]

Re: Zimmerman Case

From this description it seems that Zimmerman escalated a harmless situation into a violent one because of his prejudice. Seems a civil suit should be appropriate for this situation.

And that's why so many people are upset and do not feel that what happened here remotely brings any sense of justice. None of that previous behavior that led to this situation was considered. ALL the jury looked at was weather he was afraid for his life in that moment that he fired the gun.

Trouble is he's successfully used self-defense, so I don't think there can be a civil suit.

[bell-the-cat]

Re: Zimmerman Case

....but I do not think the jury was wrong per se. They applied the law, as it's been written. If it didn't result in "justice," then that signals a need to revisit the law.

The judicial system is going to just love me if I ever get called for jury duty. I would never simply "apply the law". I would never vote anyone guilty of breaking a law I think is wrong, regardless of whether it is certain the accused broke that law.

[Siggie]

Re: Zimmerman Case

The judicial system is going to just love me if I ever get called for jury duty. I would never simply "apply the law". I would never vote anyone guilty of breaking a law I think is wrong, regardless of whether it is certain the accused broke that law.

Me too. I would never be on a jury even without expressing that opinion though.

The jury has that right, but they are almost never informed of that. It's called jury nullification.
It's easier to do that and let someone go free than to convict someone of a crime that doesn't fit what happened.

[bell-the-cat]

Re: Zimmerman Case

The jury has that right, but they are almost never informed of that. It's called jury nullification.
It's easier to do that and let someone go free than to convict someone of a crime that doesn't fit what happened.

Thanks for that info. I did not know that there was a process where jurors can refuse to apply a law when their consciences disagree with that law.

[Eddo211]

Re: Zimmerman Case

So what do you guys think about the decision of the judge? I say he is guilty, because even though he was protecting himself...Zimmerman shouldn't have shot him in the heart..he could've aimed at the foot or some other part. Self defense does not mean you have to kill someone.

This case should have never maded to the courts, it wasted tax payers money for special interest groups who want to start a race war.

You know what is the best think about the outcome of this......he gets to have his gun back.

[Eddo211]

Re: Zimmerman Case

The judge didn't decide the verdict in the case. This was a jury trial.

The law doesn't specify where the person should be shot. I'm not happy about what happened, but I do not think the jury was wrong per se. They applied the law, as it's been written. If it didn't result in "justice," then that signals a need to revisit the law.

The self defense law has been working for last 1000 years....there is a reason why it works and must never be changed.
People who have not served as a jury duty in criminal or civic cases have no idea about the responsibility and application of evidence and state laws. You social engineers will only bring about the destruction of the constitution.

[Mher]

Re: Zimmerman Case

What are you looking for Haykakan? I haven't really seen any comprehensive stuff. Are you looking for the legal side? The evidence at trial? Juror's comments?

The short version is that Zimmerman sees Martin in his gated community on a rainy evening; a young black kid (age 17?) wearing a hoodie. Martin is returning to a relative's home where he is staying from convenience store where he bought soda. Zimmerman is carrying a concealed pistol and is neighborhood watchman. He's been described by others' as somewhat militant and as having "a hero complex." He calls 911 and reports this suspicious and unsavory "punk" to the police and describes him as the sort that always gets away. The dispatcher tells him to STOP FOLLOWING HIM. He follows him anyway. Martin notices this, on the phone with a friend says he's being followed and seems scared. He runs through the neighborhood, trying to lose the guy and eventually decides to turn and confront. I don't think it's entirely how they first collide, but at one point in the physical struggle, Martin gets the better of him and gets on top of him and is hitting him. At this point it seems that Martin becomes aware that the guy is armed and starts to get off of him, maybe trying to end the altercation? Zimmerman then shoots him and kills him.
Police don't arrest him for over a month citing the Stand your Ground self-defense law in Florida which allows one to use deadly force when one feels "threatened."

This is different from other states, even other Castle doctrine states... Most of the time you can only use proportional force and only in the face of IMMINENT harm and if you can retreat instead, you have a duty to do so. After Co in 1985 (?) passed a revision called "Castle doctrine" which makes one's home special in that you do not have a duty to retreat from one's "castle" but can defend it and the persons within. A bunch of states have this, including CA. Florida legislators in their infinite wisdom have gone one step further and removed any requirement to retreat anywhere... So, if you feel threatened and in danger of serious harm in Florida, you can respond with deadly force. Also, all one needs to do is present SOME evidence that they acted in self-defense and that's enough for the judge/jury then to have to find them not guilty unless they can decide that beyond a reasonable doubt you did NOT act in self-defense. They've made a law SO broad so as to be nearly meaningless. Even judges in Florida have commented that it's too broad and that under this law, if there was a shootout involving a bunch of people in public, everyone would be able to claim self-defense and walk away.

That's a pretty fair and objective analysis. Following the law, the man was innocent. However, it doesn't mean much when the law is complete bull. For centuries blacks were persecuted by following the law. To me it's obvious Zimmerman had a prejudice against the kid, and followed the kid specifically for his race. And even if the kid was the one who started the altercation (and there is no reason to believe this is the case), he had every right to.
What is frustrating is that out of the six jurors, five were white, with the 6th of a mixed race, and five, or all six I forget, were either gun owners, or wives of gun owners.

[Siggie]

Re: Zimmerman Case

The self defense law has been working for last 1000 years....there is a reason why it works and must never be changed.
People who have not served as a jury duty in criminal or civic cases have no idea about the responsibility and application of evidence and state laws. You social engineers will only bring about the destruction of the constitution.

I hope you aren't referring to me personally, because you don't know me from Adam... See, what happens when you shoot first and think or ask questions later is that you make errors. You disagreed with me without even bothering to learn my position first. You obviously didn't even read my second paragraph. The self-defense was indeed changed -- by Florida in 2005.

That's a pretty fair and objective analysis. Following the law, the man was innocent. However, it doesn't mean much when the law is complete bull. For centuries blacks were persecuted by following the law. To me it's obvious Zimmerman had a prejudice against the kid, and followed the kid specifically for his race. And even if the kid was the one who started the altercation (and there is no reason to believe this is the case), he had every right to.
What is frustrating is that out of the six jurors, five were white, with the 6th of a mixed race, and five, or all six I forget, were either gun owners, or wives of gun owners.

Thank you. I had to dig through the statutes and check the jury instructions used because the media was misreporting the stand your ground issue saying it didn't apply in this case and such.

Jury selection is tricky. During voir dire both sides typically have a limited number of peremptory challenges where they can get rid of any potential juror without a specific reason. No one better suspect it's race though, because that's the one thing that's not allowed. This is pretty easy to work around in practice though because they just name some other reason. Then the can challenge people for cause if they think that person is unable to be unbiased, but they would have to convince the judge that whatever characteristic, experience, belief or whatever about that person makes them so. That can be tough; it would have to an obvious prejudice or bias. Gun-ownership wouldn't work.

[Mher]

Re: Zimmerman Case

Trayvon

You can stand your ground if you're white, and you can use a gun to do it. But if you stand your ground with your fists and you're black, you're dead.

In the state of Florida, the season on African-Americans now runs year round. Come one, come all. And bring a handgun. The legislators are fine with this blood on their hands. The governor, too. One man accosted another and when it became a fist fight, one man — and one man only — had a firearm. The rest is racial rationalization and dishonorable commentary.

If I were a person of color in Florida, I would pick up a brick and start walking toward that courthouse in Sanford. Those that do not, those that hold the pain and betrayal inside and somehow manage to resist violence — these citizens are testament to a stoic tolerance that is more than the rest of us deserve. I confess, their patience and patriotism is well beyond my own.

Behold, the lewd, pornographic embrace of two great American pathologies: Race and guns, both of which have conspired not only to take the life of a teenager, but to make that killing entirely permissible. I can't look an African-American parent in the eye for thinking about what they must tell their sons about what can happen to them on the streets of their country. Tonight, anyone who truly understands what justice is and what it requires of a society is ashamed to call himself an American.

http://davidsimon.com/trayvon/

[Mher]

Re: Zimmerman Case

Thank you. I had to dig through the statutes and check the jury instructions used because the media was misreporting the stand your ground issue saying it didn't apply in this case and such.

Jury selection is tricky. During voir dire both sides typically have a limited number of peremptory challenges where they can get rid of any potential juror without a specific reason. No one better suspect it's race though, because that's the one thing that's not allowed. This is pretty easy to work around in practice though because they just name some other reason. Then the can challenge people for cause if they think that person is unable to be unbiased, but they would have to convince the judge that whatever characteristic, experience, belief or whatever about that person makes them so. That can be tough; it would have to an obvious prejudice or bias. Gun-ownership wouldn't work.

Ya even if race can't be the official reason you remove somebody, I think as a black person you are automatically at a disadvantage because the opponent can potentially remove every potential black juror, but you can never come close to removing every white juror. Ultimately there are many times more whites than blacks, and hence, you're never going to get an equally split jury. You would be lucky to get one or two black at best.