40 replies to this topic

[Oberon Storm]

Its common practice to aim high as far as charges go. Manslaughter was still an option if they could not agree on murder 2.

[Green Goblin]

Looking at my post from last year, it's odd, but my position has switched as more information has been gathered.  I rountinely listened to the trial as it happened (not the commentary or coverage though.  Just the trial.)

 

I posted on Facebook earlier this morning with my position:

 

>Guy's looking for suspicious activity. (a completely lawful thing to do)
>Guy sees a lone teenager in a hoodie, walking down a backroad, looking around at night, in the rain in a neighborhood that's had a string of break-ins. (A completely lawful thing to do)
>Guy calls the cops and lets the cops know what's up. (A completely lawful thing to do)
>Teenager sees guy and runs. (A completely lawful thing to do)
> Guy gets out of his car to get clearer line of sight on where teenager is running, while still talking to cops. (A completely lawful thing to do)
>*speculation on what happens for approximately 10 seconds*
>Martin confronts Zimmerman (as collaborated by the state's own witness).
>"Hey, we got a ****in' problem?!?"
>Fight ensues.
>During fight, Zimmerman suffers a broken nose, 2 black eyes and lacerations on the back of his head (While no defensive wounds, other than the clear bullet hole appear on Martin. Which would dictate to me that Martin was the instigator of the physical confrontation. A completely UNlawful thing to do)
>Zimmerman pulls out gun on kid who's currently on top of him and fires.

Had Zimmerman stayed in his car, this would have all been avoided. That's a completely fair and reasonable thing to say. But admittedly, so would not having Martin beat the **** outta Zimmerman. Only one of these acts is illegal. If you can prove that Zimmerman initiated the physical confrontation (emphasis: "PROVE"), then my entire argument loses. Until then, we can only go with the evidence provided (No defensive wounds on Martin, other than the bullet hole) and remember that under the law, an individual is innocent until proven guilty.

What I see is a bad call made by Zimmerman, assault made by Martin and deadly force used as self-defense.

I'm black. I'm a liberal. And I side with Zimmerman.

[Oberon Storm]

I wasn't going to argue the case with you on Facebook. I didn't see that as the point of what you were posting. But here...

 

In my mind, the fact that Zimmerman went against the advice of dispatch and chose to needlessly follow this kid in the dirst place makes him the agressor. Is it legal for Zimmerman to follow Martin? Maybe, but that doesn't make his action nonagressive. By taking this agressive action he instigated an incident that did not need to happen. This was a clear case of manslaughter by culpable negligence which is defined by Florida law as "engaging in culpably negligent  conduct that resulted in the death of another person."

 

While it is common practice to aim for the highest charge applicable and leave the door open for a lesser charge, maybe the prosecution did not do enough to make that clear. The manslaughter charge was a last minute instruction from the judge. On that I have changed my mind and agree more with Eggan about overreaching.

[Green Goblin]

I would have no problem with that charge of "Manslaughter by culpable negligence", actually.  I think that would work.  Hell, I wish they would have put it in the trial.

[Selena]

This is one of those times where "what is right" may differ from "what is legal." I think Zimmerman was an idiot for getting out of his car. I think firing a gun at Martin was entirely unnecessary, especially when something like pepper spray or a taser would have been just as effective for stopping an altercation of that nature. The boy is dead for no sensible reason. I'd attribute the major fault in this situation to our culture of "have gun, will shoot." I don't have anything against guns, per say, but people have a tendency to think that they are the only solution to an even moderately dangerous situation.

 

It reminds me of those cases where some guy holsters up his gun "just in case", gets in the face of someone they have a problem with, then fires after getting scared. If you'd have approached calmly and rationally, without having a little power high from your weapon, which is often the case, you might have avoided an incident all together. Vigilantism is dangerous.

 

That said.

 

It was impossible to prove which man threw the first punch, so the jury couldn't have made a proper conviction. Should Zimmerman have stayed in his car? Yes. Was he breaking the law by following on foot? No. And that, no matter what else you may personally think, is generally the end of the legal case. You wouldn't (or at least shouldn't - but people have gone to jail for less) have been able to convict him of a crime unless you knew - for certain - that he made the initial physical attack. The prosecution team made several missteps, and the "manslaughter by negligence" would have been a far better charge to pursue.

 

Although even that charge may not have held up. I'd think that would be more applicable to killing someone with a car while driving without a license - or something of that nature. It's a "stupid accident" kind of law.

 

 

In a way, saying that Zimmerman should be convicted for "doing something he knew was dangerous," is kind of like saying a woman "deserved it" if she got raped while walking through a bad neighborhood, because she should have known it was dangerous. Assault - of any kind - is never okay. You should only turn violent in self-defense. And following someone, while creepy, is not a violent or illegal act.

 

 

But either way, this whole situation was.... just stupid and unnecessary. Nobody had to die, and nobody had to be hurt.

 

It's an especially upsetting call because of how often people go to jail for lesser crimes. Legal systems are fickle, especially when it's a jury of peers. I sometimes wonder how effective it is to just pull people off the street and let them decide who is guilty or not.

[Oberon Storm]

The prosecution team made several missteps, and the "manslaughter by negligence" would have been a far better charge to pursue.

 

Although even that charge may not have held up. I'd think that would be more applicable to killing someone with a car while driving without a license - or something of that nature. It's a "stupid accident" kind of law.

He was acting as "Neighborhood Watch" under no authority but his own. He drove around the communtiy carrying a gun as if he was some sort of rent-a-cop when he didn't even qualify as that. That sounds pretty negligent to me.

[JRPomazon]

The Prosecution against Zimmerman was a sloppy mess, they'd pin whatever crime they could on him just to make him pay, their "key witness" was an inept friend of the victim who had no fucking clue what she was talking about and frankly, they just GAVE Zimmerman the trial. They didn't have enough substantial facts, plain and simple. I would have been terrified if by some miserable circumstance they'd be able to convict him of anything given how little evidence the prosecution had because then it would be no different than Middle School/High School Rumor/He said/She said bullshit with very real consequences.

 

But Zimmerman was a fucking idiot for not staying put and Trayvon was a fucking idiot for confronting Zimmerman and presuming that he was fucking invincible. No we have a dead kid and a guy who is effectively a dead man walking. Let's face it, these two were made for each other. Now I get to see all my liberal friends go apeshit because we didn't get the result they wanted "justice for Trayvon."

[Fëanen]

And Florida botches another trial. Murder always seemed too high a charge to me, but I think Zimmerman's following Martin was sufficiently inappropriate that he must bear some culpability for the events that ensued. Manslaughter in some form or another (I don't know Florida law) is appropriate, I think.

 

That being said, the man's life is pretty much ruined, to the extent that I think he'd be wise to move to a different state and change his name. I don't think people should harass him, of course, but I'm not so naïve to think that they won't to some degree. Right or wrong, I wouldn't say he's getting off without consequences.

[arunma]

What I see is a bad call made by Zimmerman, assault made by Martin and deadly force used as self-defense.

I'm black. I'm a liberal. And I side with Zimmerman.

Yeah, I am surprised that this was turned into a national conversation on race, given that neither person involved was white.  And we don't have any historical Latino/Black conflict as a nation...

 

That said, there's plenty of non-racial bullshit to deal with here.  The fact that Zimmerman made a bad call indicates to me that there should be laws against people walking around with guns acting as private militias.  There are laws about stalking people, disturbing the peace, etc.  Perhaps it shouldn't be legal to go up to someone who looks suspicious and ask them what they're doing.

[arunma]

Oh yeah, I read in CNN that he may not be out of the legal woods yet.  It's possible to try him in civil court a la OJ Simpson (and who honestly doesn't think he'll get convicted there).  Might also be possible to charge him with violating Trayvon Martin's civil rights, speciically the right to life.

 

I do think the latter is bullshit.  Depriving someone of the right to life is already subsumed under murder; double jeopardy should apply.  Totally OK with destorying this moron in civil court though.  I may not think Zimmerman is a murderer, but I do think he's a freaking idiot who should never be able to afford a gun again.

[Jasi]

Yeah, I am surprised that this was turned into a national conversation on race, given that neither person involved was white.  And we don't have any historical Latino/Black conflict as a nation...

 

It's not like minorities can't be racist to other minorities, arunma. And you don't need a historical conflict to be racist.

 

I do think race has a lot to do with Zimmerman's initial action—didn't he call Trayvon Martin a "coon" in his call to the police? And I think we all know why he thought Trayvon Martin looked "suspicious"—the media's portrayal of the case, and especially how the common populace of the USA has reacted to this whole ordeal. Look at the comments section of any article on this topic and it's all about race. 

 

Just because someone is part of a minority doesn't make it impossible for them to be racist.