Neighbourhood Watch Kills Unarmed Black Kid

[Gravekeeper]

"I realize it was necessary for our jury to be sequestered in order to protest our verdict from unfair outside influence, but that isolation shielded me from the depth of pain that exists among the general public over every aspect of this case," read the juror's statement.

.....Right. You couldn't figure out that the shooting of an unarmed black minor might piss people off if the shooter was found not guilty? >.>

[Andara Bledin]

The various Twitter comments are disgusting. Then again, I expected them to be.

I think it's important for people, most of whom will never sit on a jury, much less one that has to decide whether or not a law or laws were broken, be aware that even as they felt that they had to find him not guilty because there was that "reasonable doubt" still wanted to find him guilty of something because at the end of the day, it is still his fault that he killed someone and he should be punished for it.

Civil cases, however, merely need to possess a "preponderance of evidence" to be successful, and I have no doubt at all that any such case should succeed provided the lawyer(s) for the prosecution don't try to phone it in.

[draco664]

.....Right. You couldn't figure out that the shooting of an unarmed black minor might piss people off if the shooter was found not guilty? >.>

If the prosecution had tried from the outset for manslaughter or something along those lines, he may well have been found guilty (or, more likely, taken a plea deal)

[Andara Bledin]

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

[Greenday]

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

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.

[Andara Bledin]

That doesn't change the fact that the jury found him as Not Guilty of manslaughter as they found him of murder 2. 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.

And, considering that one of the jurors said specifically that many of those on the jury desperately wanted to convict him of something, if they felt they had enough evidence to support manslaughter, they would have gotten him on it.

However, based on the way the laws are written in Florida, and many other sates, apparently, the prosecution must be able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense. That counts for the manslaughter charge juts as much as for the murder 2 charge.

Although, it's worth noting that there are other charges that could conceivably be brought against Zimmerman that would essentially only require the transcripts of the big trial to convict, but they're a lot less satisfying to those who truly believe that Zimmerman acted in bad faith. This jury believed it, even as they were forced to give a Not Guilty verdict based on the legal requirements not being met.

[Panacea]

Civil cases, however, merely need to possess a "preponderance of evidence" to be successful, and I have no doubt at all that any such case should succeed provided the lawyer(s) for the prosecution don't try to phone it in.

The state won't be involved in the civil action. The Martin family's lawyer will run that case (in a civil case the person suing is called the plaintiff), and based on how he's handled things thus far (well actually) I doubt he will phone it in like the DA's office did.

If the prosecution had tried from the outset for manslaughter or something along those lines, he may well have been found guilty (or, more likely, taken a plea deal)

No question the prosecution over charged this case. I think they were bowing to public pressure, but the charge did not fit the crime and I knew Zimmerman would not get convicted on that one.

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

It was added in as an option. It was probably the appropriate charge, but by not going for the right charge, the DA hurt the case. There are also degrees the DA could have gone for, like involuntary manslaughter that might have fit the bill better and gotten a conviction.

[Barracuda]

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

[PepperElf]

The state won't be involved in the civil action. The Martin family's lawyer will run that case (in a civil case the person suing is called the plaintiff), and based on how he's handled things thus far (well actually) I doubt he will phone it in like the DA's office did.

Not sure if it's been brought up yet (and I don't have the patience to wade through 39 pages) but... I agree that FL won't be involved in any civil suit. Mainly cos - IIRC - the state has immunity in place for self-defense cases. If he'd been found guilty then he could have been sued in a civil court, but since he was found not guilty, that option - at least on the state level - no longer exists.


The only option would be a federal case - although whether or not the DOJ has the jurisdiction to target an individual citizen... cos one would think that targeting individuals because they want to punish them could perhaps go agains their own mission statement of "fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans."

[Nekojin]

Not sure if it's been brought up yet (and I don't have the patience to wade through 39 pages) but... I agree that FL won't be involved in any civil suit. Mainly cos - IIRC - the state has immunity in place for self-defense cases. If he'd been found guilty then he could have been sued in a civil court, but since he was found not guilty, that option - at least on the state level - no longer exists.


The only option would be a federal case - although whether or not the DOJ has the jurisdiction to target an individual citizen... cos one would think that targeting individuals because they want to punish them could perhaps go agains their own mission statement of "fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans."

The Justice Department has stated that they're launching an investigation on the matter, but what exactly they're investigating isn't clear.

It's my suspicion that they're going to be investigating the details surrounding the evidence collection, especially (but not limited to) the completely lax behavior of the Medical Examiner who checked Martin's body after the shooting. The ME who took the stand at trial (who was not the same person as the ME who did the exam) was quite scornful of the job that was done. There was no investigation to see if Martin had suffered any injuries beyond the fatal gunshot. Since he died before his system would have been able to generate bruising, it was necessary to examine the subcutaneous tissue and muscle for damage to determine whether Zimmerman struck Martin at all; this examination never happened, and it's impossible to do now.

There are plenty of other angles, but I don't think that the Feds are going to sue Zimmerman - they've got other, more important issues to handle. If Martin's parents want to sue Zimmerman in civil court, that will be up to them... if Florida lets them. They may be blocked from a civil trial by the Florida "Stand Your Ground" statute. However, since Zimmerman didn't invoke SYG at all, it's uncertain whether he gets that immunity or not.

[PepperElf]

The Justice Department has stated that they're launching an investigation on the matter, but what exactly they're investigating isn't clear.

It's my suspicion that they're going to be investigating the details surrounding the evidence collection, especially (but not limited to) the completely lax behavior of the Medical Examiner who checked Martin's body after the shooting. The ME who took the stand at trial (who was not the same person as the ME who did the exam) was quite scornful of the job that was done. There was no investigation to see if Martin had suffered any injuries beyond the fatal gunshot. Since he died before his system would have been able to generate bruising, it was necessary to examine the subcutaneous tissue and muscle for damage to determine whether Zimmerman struck Martin at all; this examination never happened, and it's impossible to do now.

There are plenty of other angles, but I don't think that the Feds are going to sue Zimmerman - they've got other, more important issues to handle. If Martin's parents want to sue Zimmerman in civil court, that will be up to them... if Florida lets them. They may be blocked from a civil trial by the Florida "Stand Your Ground" statute. However, since Zimmerman didn't invoke SYG at all, it's uncertain whether he gets that immunity or not.

That's perhaps the question. is it an investigation or a civil rights charge against GZ? Most news i've looked at - fox, and HP - both state that they're being asked to specifically bring charges against a citizen.

I'm just wondering what they'll find that the FBI couldn't find (what was it 15 times they looked at it?)

[Greenday]

The DOJ is probably going to look into the incompetence and laziness of the police department. They seemed to put no effort into investigating the murder or prosecuting Zimmerman.

[Hyena Dandy]

if Florida lets them. They may be blocked from a civil trial by the Florida "Stand Your Ground" statute.

The Stand Your Ground statute in Florida, AS I READ IT (which may be wrong), only allows immunity if the judge dismisses the case. Not if the jury finds not guilty.

Additionally, the manner in which Zimmerman pleaded self defense was not under Stand Your Ground. Stand Your Ground removes Duty To Retreat in public places. Zimmerman's argument (that he was pinned down by Martin) would have removed Duty To Retreat anyway.

[Nekojin]

The Stand Your Ground statute in Florida, AS I READ IT (which may be wrong), only allows immunity if the judge dismisses the case. Not if the jury finds not guilty.

Additionally, the manner in which Zimmerman pleaded self defense was not under Stand Your Ground. Stand Your Ground removes Duty To Retreat in public places. Zimmerman's argument (that he was pinned down by Martin) would have removed Duty To Retreat anyway.

*shrug* Zimmerman's lawyer was loudly crowing that he was now immune to civil suit right after the trial ended. That may purely be a strategic declaration, to deter the Martin family from attempting to file suit, rather than a factual declaration, but I don't pretend to know Florida law well enough to say either way.

[PepperElf]

I double checked what i wrote to be sure i didn't say SYG. and i didn't. I said "self-defense"

http://law.onecle.com/florida/crimes/776.032.html

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—

I won't copypasta all of it but notably, the first part is perhaps important here.

A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer

Since GZ is not guilty of murder/manslaughter etc, then it's likely he can use that law to protect himself against a civil suit at the state level.