Neighbourhood Watch Kills Unarmed Black Kid

[Barracuda]

Correct. Self defense is an absolute defense to both civil or criminal proceedings resulting from a death. If Zimmerman can prove it was more likely than not that Trayvon's death was a justifiable homicide, then the wrongful death claim will not stand up. Another bit of legal reality in this case--Stand Your Ground had nothing to do with this case. If Trayvon had attacked Zimmerman and he could have retreated but didn't, then Stand Your Ground would have applied. Since Zimmerman was on the ground, pinned by the 6 foot something Trayvon and could not retreat if he wanted to, his actions were legal self defense by the standards of any state in the Union, since no state prevents you from defending yourself from death or serious bodily harm if you cannot retreat and have no other options to preserve your life.

[wolfie]

One of the big controversies in this case is that, by refusing to even consider charges for several weeks, the government allowed spoilation of evidence that could have been used against Zimmerman.

As it stands, GZ had profiled Martin, escalated the issue (following despite instructions to the contrary, getting out of his car to continue following on foot). As a result, Martin wound up dead.

Considering this, if GZ were to follow another black teenager who was walking around minding his own business (irrelevant whether that business consisted of going to the local convenience store to buy a cold soft drink, or the retail sale of recreational pharmaceuticals), and that teenager recognized him - "Hey, that's the dude who capped Travon", would that teenager then be in legitimate fear of death or serious injury? If so, Florida has a "stand your ground" law...

[Greenday]

Guys, someone/something just set my car alarm off about 40 minutes ago (2am) while I was sitting in my living room, watching LOTR. I thought about grabbing a gun and going all vigilante, looking for someone/something to shoot, but then I decided to call the cops and let the professionals handle it. Crazy, right? What was I thinking letting the police handling a suspicious thing like that?

[draco664]

They did try for manslaughter. He was found not guilty of that as well as the murder charge.

A charge added during the proscution's closing arguments.

They didn't go after manslaughter. They were trying to get him for Murder 2. Manslaughter was an option, but that's not what the prosecution fought for.

Note that the prosecution asked the judge to drop the aggravated assault charge and instead instruct the jury on felony murder. The felony committed in the course of the murder? Child abuse. Seriously. Even the prosecution-friendly judge balked at that. He tossed in manslaughter instead.

By adding it in at the end the the judge was essentially saying "Hey, if you want to find him guilty of something, whatever floats your boat is fine by me."

You'd almost, by necessity, have to prove at least manslaughter to reach murder 2, so it's not like they were avoiding anything that would help a manslaughter conviction.

I'm not a lawyer, but that's nonsense. They are very different charges, used in very different circumstances.

Murder 2 is basically - you killed someone and meant to do it, but did it without premeditation (ie, in the heat of the moment), which would be murder 1.

Manslaughter is basically - you killed someone but didn't mean to, usually accidentally.

If you're going to take someone to trial for both those charges, your arguments are going to be logically inconsistent.

I feel I should point out that my opinions have shifted dramatically over the past year. I was pretty much in the GZ is guilty camp from reading the news reports and blog posts after the incident itself. Reading my previous posts in this thread will bear that out. But after reviewing the actual trial transcripts and how the prosecution presented the arguments, I think the jurors came to the right decision. I think the media have presented this case poorly.

[bara]

But after reviewing the actual trial transcripts and how the prosecution presented the arguments, I think the jurors came to the right decision. I think the media have presented this case poorly.

I still think GZ is guilty of manslaughter. I also do not think the prosecution proved it beyond a reasonable doubt. Had they only sought manslaughter and focused on that they might have been able to make their case. Or possibly got a plea bargain. As it is they were overreaching and it bit them in the ass.

But then watching some of the trial I am not sure the prosecution was qualified to handle this case at all.

[Bronzebow]

I get so sick of how the facts are twisted in this case, over and over again.
Fact: Zimmerman broke no laws in following Trayvon. The dispatcher who suggested (not ordered) that he not follow Trayvon had no legal authority to order him to do anything. Dispatchers are not sworn officers and have zero legal authority to issue orders.
Fact: Zimmerman broke no laws in confronting Martin. You have every legal right, on a public street, to speak to someone and say anything you want (Short of threats to harm them.)
Fact: All the evidence points to Trayvon initiating violence against George Zimmerman, not the other way around. Trayvon had precisely zero legal right to do this, as there is no evidence Zimmerman threatened him, and you cannot convict a man based on your belief of what might have happened.
Fact: Zimmerman had injuries to his nose and the back of his head that corroborate his story of what happened. Trayvon, aside from the bullet hole that killed him, had no wounds of any kind except bruising to his knuckles consistent with having used his fists to break Zimmerman's nose. Having your head bashed into a sidewalk over and over, to me, represents a threat any reasonable person would interpret as potentially lethal. What was Zimmerman supposed to do at this point? LET Trayvon kill or seriously injure him?
Fact: George Zimmerman is demonstrably not a racist. He is not white, he is Hispanic, and has black relatives. His prom date in high school was a black girl, he voted for Obama for President, and he once organized a protest campaign against the beating of a black homeless man by police. He also volunteered to help black inner-city youth, once upon a time.
Fact: MSNBC doctored audio of the 911 call to make Zimmerman appear racist when he is not. Actual call: Zimmerman: This guy looks like he's up to no good. He looks like he might be high, and he's just wandering around, looking about. (Drugs were, in fact, found in Trayvon's system.) Dispatcher: What does he look like? Is he white, black, Hispanic? Zimmerman: He looks black. MSNBC Edit: Zimmerman: This guy looks like he's up to no good. He looks black.
Zimmerman is in fact suing MSNBC for defamation and character assassination over this edit.

People really need to get their facts straight before judging a man they never have met, don't know, and frankly have no right to judge in the first place. ENDRANT

It's exactly that kind of armchair judgement that make me cringe. That people are so willing to ignore fact in order to favor made up racism makes one thankful for even our admittedly flawed justice system. If the alternative was the court of public opinion...we'd be screwed.

While I do believe stupidity was in play for both parties, the verifiable facts support the ruling. That murder 2 was even a possibility shows how much the state buckled under the overwhelming falsities presented by the likes of national news.

[Gravekeeper]

Fact: Zimmerman broke no laws in following Trayvon. The dispatcher who suggested (not ordered) that he not follow Trayvon had no legal authority to order him to do anything. Dispatchers are not sworn officers and have zero legal authority to issue orders.

I'm not sure what relevance that has. No one said Zimmerman went against orders.

Fact: All the evidence points to Trayvon initiating violence against George Zimmerman, not the other way around. Trayvon had precisely zero legal right to do this, as there is no evidence Zimmerman threatened him, and you cannot convict a man based on your belief of what might have happened.

Right back at you. Seeing as Trayvon is dead, we don't know what Zimmerman said or did at that point. Trayvon likewise has full legal right to self defense and if Zimmerman did anything hostile that made Trayvon fear for his life; Then the entire scenario swings the other way.

Fact: Zimmerman had injuries to his nose and the back of his head that corroborate his story of what happened. Trayvon, aside from the bullet hole that killed him, had no wounds of any kind except bruising to his knuckles consistent with having used his fists to break Zimmerman's nose. Having your head bashed into a sidewalk over and over, to me, represents a threat any reasonable person would interpret as potentially lethal. What was Zimmerman supposed to do at this point? LET Trayvon kill or seriously injure him?

Fact: Zimmerman changed his story of what happened a couple of times during questioning ( In one version Trayvon was smothering him, in another he was trying to get his gun, in another he was utterly death threats ). Zimmerman's injuries were also insignificant and inconsistent with the "slamming head into the sidewalk over and over" myth.

The medical examiner that testified during the trial testified:

The wounds displayed on Zimmerman’s head and face were “consistent with one strike, two injuries at one time,” she testified. “The injuries were not life-threatening,” she said, adding they were “very insignificant.”

Martin only had one injury ( gunshot aside ): A mark on his ring finger. IE, he likely socked Zimmerman in the face and he was cut on the back of the head when he fell. There was no head slamming / ground and pound bullshit. Zimmerman's injuries did not even require a trip to the hospital. No concussion, etc.

Zimmerman told police that Martin had struck him "More than two dozen times" in the face and was having his head pounded into the sidewalk. The medical examination and testimony shows he had his nose broken and fell over.

Fact: George Zimmerman is demonstrably not a racist. He is not white, he is Hispanic, and has black relatives. His prom date in high school was a black girl, he voted for Obama for President, and he once organized a protest campaign against the beating of a black homeless man by police. He also volunteered to help black inner-city youth, once upon a time.

You're seriously using the "Some of my best friends are black" route? >.>

Zimmerman's coworkers testified:

Zimmerman, according to the witness, targeted him because he was Middle Eastern. He repeatedly called the man a “fucking moron” and mocked him using the voice of “Achmed the terrorist.” Zimmerman’s stories about the man would involve “bombing,” “I’ll kill your family” and other “jokes” about “Middle Eastern stuff.” According to the man, this went on “for days and days.”

Zimmerman was later fired from that job. Also, Zimmerman's brother is likewise a demonstrable racist asshole.

People really need to get their facts straight before judging a man they never have met, don't know, and frankly have no right to judge in the first place. ENDRANT

Physician, heal thyself.

[Nekojin]

A couple of corrections to the Bronzebow/Barracuda narrative:

1.) Martin's injuries from the fight are unknown. He died before bruising could set in, and the ME that performed his autopsy did a laughably poor, cursory inspection - so bad, that the ME that took the stand made some disparaging comments to that effect. We have no evidence as to what damage Martin did to Zimmerman, because such evidence was never explored, and is now long gone. You cannot show a lack of evidence, and assert that it shows evidence of lack.
2.) "Demonstrably not a racist" is not really something anyone can claim about anyone. Racism isn't a binary "Yes/No" flag. It's a sad fact that our brains are programmed to generalize, categorize, and even prejudge situations, based on our past experiences. It's evident that Zimmerman did prejudge Martin on appearances alone, strongly enough that he called the police despite Martin having done nothing to warrant this. Even by Zimmerman's own word, Martin was just walking down the street looking at the houses - oh, and giving the fuck-eye to that guy in the SUV who was staring at him. Whether Zimmerman made a judgment on Martin based on his skin, his clothing, or something else about him, the fact remains that he decided that Martin was up to no good, without any actual proof of any wrongdoing. Just as you can say that Zimmerman wasn't doing anything wrong by following Martin, you can also say that Martin wasn't doing anything wrong by walking.

[Barracuda]

That's as may be, Gravekeeper. However, under the American system of law, it isn't up to Zimmerman to prove he killed Martin in self defense. "Innocent until proven guilty" means the prosecution had to prove he didn't kill Martin in self defense, and they didn't do that. Nor did they even come close to proving "beyond a reasonable doubt", which is the standard in American criminal cases.

One could argue that we may never know what happened that night. However, to me, that means we should err on the side of innocence, not guilt. We don't KNOW what happened for absolute certainty, so how can we say Zimmerman is guilty? And especially what gives us the right to start denigrating someone we've never met and don't know personally? And what gives people the right to threaten to take the law into their own hands? That would make them murderers, and if Zimmerman IS innocent, it would make them murderers of an innocent man who did nothing but defend himself against unjustified attack. And regardless of what you think Zimmerman did or did not do, attacking random whites while screaming "Justice for Trayvon!" is clearly wrong and racist to the core. There is a real problem with bringing the race card into everything in this country, even when race may have not had anything to do with it. Even if Zimmerman did kill Martin, are we sure it was racism? What if he just was sick of young punks with an attitude and decided to do something about it? And how does this one case mean blacks have license to riot and get whipped up into a frenzy by scum like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, two of the biggest bigots in the world today?

[Bronzebow]

A couple of corrections to the Bronzebow/Barracuda narrative:

I'm not certain what you mean by correcting the narrative, because you make the same points that Barracuda did. That there wasn't any information here suggesting race was at play, and that given the information it was very likely that both individuals made some stupid judgments. Two witnesses reported seeing Martin on top of Zimmerman throwing punches, corroborated by his medical report where he was

diagnosed with a closed fracture of his nose, two black eyes, lacerations to the back of his head, a minor back injury, and bruising in his upper lip and cheek.

I've read the reports on the 911 call, and I've just reread them again. Except for the blatant forgeries from MSNBC, I don't see how anyone can see racism here unless specifically looking for it. Heck, look at the title of this thread!

I see a possibly overly sensitive neighborhood watchman witnessing someone acting strangely after a string of break-ins, and a very unfortunate outcome for two people that probably could have handled things a lot better. We can speculate beyond that, but it remains that: speculation. How this is supposedly a hate crime worthy of national news is beyond me.

[Andara Bledin]

I'm not certain what you mean by correcting the narrative, because you make the same points that Barracuda did.

No. No, he didn't. "Not demonstrably racist" is not the same as "demonstrably not racist." To think so is to fall into a very basic logical fallacy.

Trying to claim that race was definitely not involved is utterly unknowable unless you are George Zimmerman, and even then, it's possible he is and doesn't think so. However, anyone claiming that race definitely was a factor is equally wrong.

It's ultimately irrelevant, anyway, because he did profile Martin. Whether because he was black, or because he was young, or because he was male, or because he was a stranger, it doesn't really matter. He decided from the outset that Martin was up to no good, and we see where that led.

The only point of contention, really, is how it was that it led there. Zimmerman is the only one that can know for a fact, and even he may not be able to give a true recounting of the events any more, because memory is a fickle bitch and we constantly rewrite our own histories. In fact, the more we go over certain memories, the less certain they become due to the way our brains process them.

[Bronzebow]

No. No, he didn't. "Not demonstrably racist" is not the same as "demonstrably not racist." To think so is to fall into a very basic logical fallacy.

I figured that would be my understood meaning considering my very next sentence, but if it isn't, then I consider myself clarified.

[Gravekeeper]

Two witnesses reported seeing Martin on top of Zimmerman throwing punches, corroborated by his medical report

If Zimmerman had received the beating he said he did could not have left the scene under his own power. We have plenty of pictures of Zimmerman's injuries, some from the very moment sitting in the back of the squad car. He got popped in the nose and that's about it for major injuries. You don't get to shoot someone for breaking your nose.

Also, some witnesses placed Zimmerman on top as well and others reported them wrestling around with neither one being on top but it going back and forth. Trayvon was simply on top last so to speak. According to the witness that was on the phone with Trayvon, Zimmerman put his hands on Martin first. Otherwise Trayvon would not have been yelling at Zimmerman to "Get off".

So if you go by the witness testimony from both sides, the scenario looks like Zimmerman profiles and follows Trayvon, puts his hands on him starting an altercation, they scuffle for 30-40 seconds, Zimmerman freaks when he think's he's losing the fight and shoots Trayvon. Zimmerman immediately claims self defense to the first person that arrives on scene.

Then because its Florida, he's not guilty since he shot the best witness to death.

[Bronzebow]

So if you go by the witness testimony from both sides, the scenario looks like Zimmerman profiles and follows Trayvon, puts his hands on him starting an altercation, they scuffle for 30-40 seconds, Zimmerman freaks when he think's he's losing the fight and shoots Trayvon. Zimmerman immediately claims self defense to the first person that arrives on scene.

You're free to have your own opinion. I disagree with your assertions on the grounds that we do not have enough information to make that--or pretty much any--call. What you list is a possibility, sure, but without any real basis to give it weight. I think that exactly that kind of mob justice mentality is dangerous, especially when it's based on emotionally charged fabrications. No one is served when emotion rules over logic.

I've read the first few pages of this thread, started by you, over a year ago. There seems to be a lot of misleading information in the OP. Just out of curiosity: would you change anything in your summary knowing what you do now?

[Greenday]

Then because its Florida, he's not guilty since he shot the best only witness to death.

Fixed that for you. No one saw who started the fight. NO ONE. No one saw the majority of the fight. By the time anyone saw the fight, Martin was on top which was when Zimmerman shot him. This has been proven by all the physical evidence.

He got popped in the nose and that's about it for major injuries. You don't get to shoot someone for breaking your nose.

I guess you never saw that picture. It's the result of Martin slamming his head into concrete multiple times at the end of the fight. You do get to shoot someone for trying to literally bash your brains in. Which is exactly why he was found not guilty.