The Zimmerman Trial

[dust1n]

This is a rough time for white progressives. Long have they thought of their dark skinned charges as a simple but noble savages, incapable of the racism which afflicts the melanin challenged. They lovingly trained, provided for & nurtured black folk, hoping that some day they would join the elite intelligentsia as equals in guiding society to a Star Trekish future of equality & peace for all races & species. Alas, they now discover that their beloved would-be brothers & sisters are no different, sharing all the human frailties of their oppressors. What a difficult thing it must be to face....the fact that black folk are human, &....gasp....imperfect too. What is Trayvon Martin's real crime? He was human.

Hmm? You know it isn't 1980, right?

 

[dust1n]

Honestly, I hadn't followed this case and had no idea it was such a big deal. But, I am rather confused about how a hispanic guy shooting a black guy suddenly became such a huge story and what it has to do with white-black racism.

Neither of the people involved sound like peaches, and the incident could have apparently been prevented at more than one point. It was a messed up incident, but I find no credible reason for convicting the guy of murder beyond a reasonable doubt. Of course, the situation feels wrong and possibly unfair somehow, but a lot of situations in life are messy and gray, and that's why we attempt to have a methodical legal system to try to define exactly what is a crime and what it isn't.

It all started during the investigation, and when the local black churches called for an investigation and arrest of Zimmerman, local media picked up, which then touched a chord with everyone that a white guy (Hispanic people mostly see themselves as White as much as they Hispanic) shot a black guy under unknown circumstances. A bunch of people called for his arrest and investigation, which let to the local officials pressuring the police to arrest Zimmerman and charge him with murder, in which they did, and as the whole ordeal became a piece of viral media, the whole thing got bigger and bigger, until this point.

Anyone remember these?

 

[dust1n]

As I said above, Zimmerman is not perfect. And while we have no certain proof of who attacked whom, if Zimmerman had attacked Martin, we would've expected his handgun to play a role before Martin pounded him into the ground. This is not certainty...just a preponderance of evidence. Add to this, Martin's hateful racially charged remark about Zimmerman.

Why is that? It would have been illegal to pull a gun, but obviously, the guy had a vested interest in making sure this kid remained there until the police did...

 

[dust1n]

The reality is that profiling someone isn't a capital offense. GZ didn't deserve to go to jail for 10 years even if he did instigate a fist fight. Whatever threat GZ might have posed to Trayvon was clearly neutralized once he was on the ground. At that point he should've just walked away. Instead he unleashed his wrath upon GZ and basically tried to put him in a hospital if not kill him.

If there was evidence that GZ instigated the fist fight, he would have probably be convicted and probably would have received a life sentence. This would be on top of instigating a fight against a minor. Obviously GZ wasn't neutralized. If he could have shot him at that point where from he was, he would have been able to do so if GZ had just gotten up. By GZ's own account, Martin reached for his gun. If so, Martin would have every right to do what it is available to him not to get shot.

 

[dust1n]

The bread and butter of people that don't understand common law... Ask a cop lol

You understand the common law, but you are incapable of sourcing the statue? How does that work?

 

[Magic Man]

Sure it does.

Nope.

Possible this....possible that.....but no certain conclusions.

No, but I'm not the one talking as if there are. I'm the one saying that from what we know Zimmerman's possible racism actually played a part while Martin's didn't.

So you wish the justice system would punish people not for their guilt, but as a communication technique?
Lawd help us if you ever serve on a jury.

Or you could actually read what I write and not just put words in my mouth. Hint: I say that because not once did I say I wish the justice system would punish people as a communication technique, nor did I say I'd make my decision based on that idea as part of a jury. In fact I specifically rejected the second part when I said that there wasn't sufficient reason to convict him of manslaughter. But hey, if you'd rather twist things to mean something that makes your worldview easier, go right ahead.

 

[Magic Man]

At that point he should've just walked away.

Sure, that makes sense. This guy was following me and I felt threatened enough to knock him to the ground. The obvious next step is to walk away because the guy I just knocked down clearly won't come after me or do anything else to hurt me. Riiiiight.

Instead he unleashed his wrath upon GZ and basically tried to put him in a hospital if not kill him.

I didn't realize you were there. It's too bad they didn't have you testify at the trial, because the only witnesses they had didn't have this much detail. I mean, you were there, right? You're not just making wild assumptions, right?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

There were 4 minutes between their initial contact and the fight. Martin's house was less than 100 yards away. Do you really mean to tell me his first instinct was to run home?

According to Zimmerman, Martin ran away from him before the fight occurred, in a direction we now know to be Martin's home. Are you suggesting Zimmerman lied about that?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

The bread and butter of people that don't understand common law... Ask a cop lol

Are you a cop? Do you have any relevant expertise/authority on the subject? Naturally, as a person unfamiliar with how the law treats self-defense, I want to know if I can trust the credibility of those who claim to be familiar.

Having your actions be perceived as threatening isn't illegal. It isn't against the law to freak someone out. Zimmerman "admitted" his actions in his testimony because he was clearly within his rights to do them. Didn't you take a law class in high school?

No, I did not. Nor did I claim that "having your actions be perceived as threatening" is illegal. I claimed that if a person takes actions which could reasonably be perceived as threatening, they ought to be partially culpable for the consequences. The standard should be even more rigorous on an armed adult than an unarmed teenager. That's just IMHO. But I welcome any education on what the law says on these matters that you can provide.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Sure, that makes sense. This guy was following me and I felt threatened enough to knock him to the ground. The obvious next step is to walk away because the guy I just knocked down clearly won't come after me or do anything else to hurt me. Riiiiight.

I didn't realize you were there. It's too bad they didn't have you testify at the trial, because the only witnesses they had didn't have this much detail. I mean, you were there, right? You're not just making wild assumptions, right?

There is such a thing as responding to a threat with an unjustified amount of force. For instance, you're not allowed shoot someone because he slaps you in the face. How about he tells GZ that he better stay down and then RUNS to a safe location. He clearly would've had the opportunity once he had dropped GZ. And if George is the coward we all think he is there's about 99% chance he would heeded such a warning to stay down. Even from a moral point of view, the kid should've at least given George a chance to give up. Raining blows on him mma style until he's in a comma or dies cannot be justified on the grounds that there's chance he MIGHT get up again. And what's so wild about assuming that George had been dropped from a punch and then Martin climbed on him MMA style basically trying to kill him? GZ certainly lie down voluntarily. Or do you propose Trayvon simply asked him to lie down and George complied with the request? Is anyone even arguing against the claim that GZ was dropped by Martin at which point an MMA style beatdown commenced? Even the prosecution, a sad excuse for a bunch of litigators, had to change their tune and concede that Martin was on top when he was shot.

 

[Revoltingest]

Source(s), please.

You question the idea that killing someone in actual self-defense is not manslaughter?
OK....
FL 782.02. Justifiable use of deadly force

We pretty much know for certain that Zimmerman took a number of actions which would reasonably be perceived as threatening. We know this because Zimmerman freely admits it in his own testimony.

Which acts did he admit would be possibly threatening?

I described these actions (in another context) in post #421 (but we should ignore #2 in this context, for obvious reasons). The fact that an otherwise innocent teen would first run away from, then assault, a stranger, further supports that Zimmerman's actions were perceived as threatening.

Even if GZ had done something which precipitated the result of TM assaulting him, the issue is whether GZ's acts were proximate cause for TM's assault on him. This was not evidenced. Thus, we are left with the fact of TM astride GZ pummeling him before GZ shot him.

If TM did find GZ's acts threatening, & since TM was unarmed, I'd fully expect TM to flee. Being younger & faster, this would work, even if GZ pursued him in his vehicle, given the short distances involved. That this didn't happen casts doubt on TM feeling very threatened.

 

[tumbleweed41]

There is such a thing as responding to a threat with an unjustified amount of force....

Like shooting someone?

 

[Revoltingest]

There is such a thing as responding to a threat with an unjustified amount of force.

From....
Zimmerman Case: The Five Principles of the Law of Self Defense
we have...

The principle of Proportionality refers to the notion that the degree of force you may use in self-defense must be proportional to the degree of force with which you are threatened. Briefly, a non-deadly threat may only be countered with a non-deadly defense. A threat capable of causing death or grave bodily harm (e.g., a broken bone, blinding, a rape) may be met with deadly force.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, but I'm not the one talking as if there are. I'm the one saying that from what we know Zimmerman's possible racism actually played a part while Martin's didn't.

Why sanitize Martin's racist remark?

Or you could actually read what I write and not just put words in my mouth. Hint: I say that because not once did I say I wish the justice system would punish people as a communication technique, nor did I say I'd make my decision based on that idea as part of a jury. In fact I specifically rejected the second part when I said that there wasn't sufficient reason to convict him of manslaughter. But hey, if you'd rather twist things to mean something that makes your worldview easier, go right ahead.

You said what you said.

I do wish there had been some kind of punishment for him, though, just to serve as a warning to him and others that his actions were still wrong.

Regret it now?

 

[Revoltingest]

A juror speaks out on Zimmerman's state of mind during his beating....
Juror: 'No doubt' that Zimmerman feared for his life - CNN.com

It would be good for her to remain anonymous.

All them jurors should go home tonight and kill themselves for letting a grown man get away with killing a kid
— Roddy White (@roddywhiteTV) July 14, 2013

He plays for something called the Atlanta Falcons
​

 

[Mr Spinkles]

This definition is incomplete because it doesn't include killing due to self-defense, which is not manslaughter.

Source(s), please.

You question the idea that killing someone in actual self-defense is not manslaughter?
OK....
FL 782.02. Justifiable use of deadly force

No, I don't question that. I was wondering what is your source for the legal definition of manslaughter, since you claim my source's definition (CNN) was incomplete.

Which acts did he admit would be possibly threatening?

I didn't say he admitted his acts would be possibly threatening. I'm unaware whether he was asked that question--in any event, his opinion on that matter is irrelevant, since that is not for him to decide. I said we know he committed the acts, because he admitted it.

Even if GZ had done something which precipitated the result of TM assaulting him, the issue is whether GZ's acts were proximate cause for TM's assault on him. This was not evidenced. Thus, we are left with the fact of TM astride GZ pummeling him before GZ shot him.

Emphasis added. Okay. I think you summarized the issue admirably. On the bold part, we simply disagree. That's just IMHO. The jury agreed with you, of course, and I acknowledge that.

For the record, I'm not one of those far-left extremists who insists the jury's decision is necessarily a travesty of justice, Martin's civil rights were violated, I know what happened that night, etc. There's definitely an unreasonable camp on the Left and I don't want to be pigeonholed with them.

If TM did find GZ's acts threatening, & since TM was unarmed, I'd fully expect TM to flee. Being younger & faster, this would work, even if GZ pursued him in his vehicle, given the short distances involved. That this didn't happen casts doubt on TM feeling very threatened.

It did happen, and the fact that it happened supports that TM felt very threatened indeed. According to GZ's testimony, TM fled from him. The stranger then proceeded to chase the innocent teen on foot. Again, this is according to Zimmerman. It was only after TM ran away and they lost sight of each other, that they encountered each other a second time, away from the car, the road, and much light. At this second encounter, a confrontation ensued. You speculate that TM wasn't "feeling very threatened", which is (1) not the simplest assumption based on the facts, (2) fails to explain why TM would flee from, then assault a stranger. You make it sound as though if TM didn't run all the way home, he must not have been afraid. As if TM deliberately only ran part way home as a ruse, just to get GZ out of his car so he could assault him for no reason. OTOH, common sense tells me it's not surprising that a moderately frightened teen would resume walking once he got off the main road out of sight of GZ ... after all, up until that point the creepy stranger was just stalking him in his car. What kind of maniac would go so far as to actually ditch the car in the road, and run after you on foot? TM probably felt he was safe enough to resume walking at that point, as many reasonable people would. The fact that TM fled supports that he was afraid, the fact that GZ caught up to him supports that he resumed walking because he thought he was safe, and therefore TM would have been even more surprised and frightened by the second encounter. Hence TM's statement on the phone that he lost him, then "Oh ****! It's that guy again!" Hence the flight, then fight response.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

(Hispanic people mostly see themselves as White as much as they Hispanic)

I don't know who told you this... I for one, am a Hispanic person that doesn't consider myself white at all. And no Hispanic person I know or have ever known considers his/herself white... I challenge you to find ONE Hispanic person that says they're white. Or a white person that considers Hispanic people to be white. White people sure as hell don't treat us like we're part of the club...

 

[Revoltingest]

For the record, I'm not one of those far-left extremists who insists the jury's decision is necessarily a travesty of justice, Martin's civil rights were violated, I know what happened that night, etc. There's definitely an unreasonable camp on the Left and I don't want to be pigeonholed with them.

You've been most civil.

It did happen, and the fact that it happened supports that TM felt very threatened indeed. According to GZ's testimony, TM fled from him. The stranger then proceeded to chase the innocent teen on foot. Again, this is according to Zimmerman. It was only after TM ran away and they lost sight of each other, that they encountered each other a second time, away from the car, the road, and much light. At this second encounter, a confrontation ensued. You speculate that TM wasn't "feeling very threatened", which is (1) not the simplest assumption based on the facts, (2) fails to explain why TM would flee from, then assault a stranger. You make it sound as though if TM didn't run all the way home, he must not have been afraid. As if TM deliberately only ran part way home as a ruse, just to get GZ out of his car so he could assault him for no reason. OTOH, common sense tells me it's not surprising that a moderately frightened teen would resume walking once he got off the main road out of sight of GZ ... after all, up until that point the creepy stranger was just stalking him in his car. What kind of maniac would go so far as to actually ditch the car in the road, and run after you on foot? TM probably felt he was safe enough to resume walking at that point, as many reasonable people would. The fact that TM fled supports that he was afraid, the fact that GZ caught up to him supports that he resumed walking because he thought he was safe, and therefore TM would have been even more surprised and frightened by the second encounter. Hence TM's statement on the phone that he lost him, then "Oh ****! It's that guy again!" Hence the flight, then fight response.

A reasonable explanation for TM's assault of GZ was anger.
But we'll never know.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

You understand the common law, but you are incapable of sourcing the statue? How does that work?

Not incapable. Lazy. I don't wanna search through the internet for something any idiot knows isn't against the law.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't know who told you this... I for one, am a Hispanic person that doesn't consider myself white at all. And no Hispanic person I know or have ever known considers his/herself white... I challenge you to find ONE Hispanic person that says they're white. Or a white person that considers Hispanic people to be white. White people sure as hell don't treat us like we're part of the club...

An Hispanic gal who did accounting work for me is as white as they come....blue eyes, brown hair, & as full a member of whatever the club is as any white folk I know. I know other Hispanics who claim to be not "white", but look white, & don't seem to fit in any differently. I also know Hispanics who are darker, shorter, mow lawns, & fit the stereotype, but "the club" doesn't seem to give'm any problem. Could it be where I live or you live?
But this latest new racial class, the "white Hispanic" seems to be the worst of all worlds....one who earns the scorn of oppressor who isn't reaping any of the supposed benefits of oppressing anyone.