The Zimmerman case?

[chenGOD]

No opinions from watmm massif on this topic?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/07/13/zimmerman-jury.html

 

I don't know nearly enough about the case, but given Zimmerman's pas run-ins with the law, and if I recall correctly that the police asked him not to follow Martin..I have a bit of a tough time with the not guilty verdict...

[Adieu]

I'm tired of typing. If you want to talk about it on the phone ring me up. I'm quite chatty.

[goDel]

Agreed. And that smiling Zimmerman picture doesn't help at all.

 

This verdict doesn't feel like "justice has been done" or "fair" at all.

 

Where have you been btw? I've been missing your pov in a couple of recent discussions...

[Guest nene multiple assgasms]

the prosecution failed to prove to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn't self defense. the original outrage around the shooting was that they weren't even going to charge zimmerman, which was absurd. he's had his month in court. now it's time to move on.

[goDel]

The verdict seems to hinge on this part:

The defense maintained that Zimmerman was just walking back to his car when Martin confronted him, punching him in his face and knocking him to the ground. According to the defense, Martin then mounted Zimmerman and smashed his head into the concrete pavement multiple times, forcing the older man to shoot the teen in order to save his own life.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/13/george-zimmerman-not-guilty_n_3588743.html

 

The unsettling thing is that we know Zimmerman shot Martin. But there isn't a good account of what happened, because only one perspective of the event survived, so to speak. I haven't seen, or read about, the medical records of Zimmerman in relation to his fight with Martin, but I'm having a hard time believing his life was at stake and he had to shoot Martin to save his life. To save his ass perhaps, but that's no excuse to kill an "attacker" and to walk away free.

[Guest nene multiple assgasms]

but I'm having a hard time believing his life was at stake and he had to shoot Martin to save his life.

 

 

the jury doesn't have to believe that. they just have to have a reasonable doubt that shooting him was unjustified.

[goDel]

Yeah, I understand. You're absolutely right. The prosecution had to prove the opposite of my argument. Which was hardly possible.

 

I still think it's a bit backwards though, if you put it in a broader context of people having the right to carry a gun. If you live in a country where people have the right to cary a gun, I would have suspected that people who killed someone should be the ones to prove they did so out of self defense. If they can't, and it's proven they killed someone, they should be guilty by law. This feels so backwards. Everyone can carry a gun, and as long as people can't prove they didn't act out of self defense, they can shoot whoever they like.

 

At least, this is what I read into this.

[elusive4]

and if I recall correctly that the police asked him not to follow Martin..

you yourself have set yourself up to be incorrect with this statement.

[delet...]

argument should be over the recently instated law that permitted zimmerman to shoot martin, not whether martin should have been gotten off. But of course they want the law around so that rich, influencial people can use it an out after they've shot someone. The state just got a little peeved when a regular person used it.

[DorkingtonPugsly]

I wish he'd been charged guilty because I believe he was in the wrong. I feel terrible for Trayvon and his family/friends. If it's true he was just on a snack run right? And he phoned his friend up because he noticed Zimmerman following him, and he said he was scared.

But it's just how the jury system works. If they have any doubt at all that he's not guilty then they can't vote guilty, even if they fear riots breaking out as a result or even if they 'think' Zimmerman should be jailed, or else the already faulty system would collapse even further if people are given breaks and excuses. It's a sad reality but we're operating by the fairest system possible really.

It's a muddled story, there's not enough evidence to piece the puzzle together fully, and that's the really unfortunate part.

The thing is if Zimmerman didn't have a fucking gun, Trayvon wouldn't have died. We don't need these guns, but nothing will ever be done, oh well.

[goDel]

argument should be over the recently instated law that permitted zimmerman to shoot martin, not whether martin should have been gotten off. But of course they want the law around so that rich, influencial people can use it an out after they've shot someone. The state just got a little peeved when a regular person used it.

Exactly.

 

Do you have more info about how this law was implemented and which arguments were used in the process of doing so? Links for some extra background?

[Guest nene multiple assgasms]

 

argument should be over the recently instated law that permitted zimmerman to shoot martin, not whether martin should have been gotten off. But of course they want the law around so that rich, influencial people can use it an out after they've shot someone. The state just got a little peeved when a regular person used it.

Exactly.

 

Do you have more info about how this law was implemented and which arguments were used in the process of doing so? Links for some extra background?

 

 

I don't think it (stand your ground) was implemented in this case. zimmerman simply claimed self defense.

[goDel]

Reading up on the wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law), the point still stands, imo, that 'the law' is written in a way that it protects someone who killed someone with a firearm. Which is backwards.

 

So, like you say, zimmerman can simply claim self defense while the prosecution is forced to show the opposite. And can walk away freely if prosecution can't prove zimmerman didn't act out of self defense. The law protects the shooter.

If you reverse the law in such a way that zimmerman had to prove he acted out of self defense, things would be fundamentally different. My argument would be that in a country where people have the right to " bare firearms", the law should be such that potential victims should be protected optimally.

 

I'm sure you understand that from an outsiders point of view, laws like these confirm the stereotypical image we euros have of the us (US= wild west/ gunslinging cowboys, etc).

 

Edit: btw, here 'the law' goes further than only the stand your ground law

[elusive4]

I wish he'd been charged guilty because I believe he was in the wrong.

"wish". "believe". it's a shame we have courts of law that operate on evidence and not emotion, mob mentality.

[goDel]

Omg

 

TAMPA, Fla. -- Marissa Alexander had never been arrested before she fired a bullet at a wall one day in 2010 to scare off her husband when she felt he was threatening her. Nobody got hurt, but this month a northeast Florida judge was bound by state law to sentence her to 20 years in prison.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/19/marissa-alexander-gets-20_n_1530035.html

 

Wtf

[Guest nene multiple assgasms]

Omg

 

TAMPA, Fla. -- Marissa Alexander had never been arrested before she fired a bullet at a wall one day in 2010 to scare off her husband when she felt he was threatening her. Nobody got hurt, but this month a northeast Florida judge was bound by state law to sentence her to 20 years in prison.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/19/marissa-alexander-gets-20_n_1530035.html

 

Wtf

 

 

yeah, that sounds like it would have been a good case to practice jury nullification. those mandatory minimum sentences are ridiculous.

[elusive4]

The unsettling thing is that we know Zimmerman shot Martin. But there isn't a good account of what happened, because only one perspective of the event survived, so to speak. I haven't seen, or read about, the medical records of Zimmerman in relation to his fight with Martin, but I'm having a hard time believing his life was at stake and he had to shoot Martin to save his life. To save his ass perhaps, but that's no excuse to kill an "attacker" and to walk away free.

there is a good account of what happened; reiterated by experts on the stand that the evidence is consistent with what the shooter had stated from day 0. comical also that originally the police attempted to trick the shooter by stating there was indeed camera footage of the incident, to which he stated "thank god" and was "relieved".

 

the only thing this thread is providing is evidence that few are even remotely familiar wth the facts of this case and/or the actual trial itself of which the jurors were exposed to.

[elusive4]

Omg

 

TAMPA, Fla. -- Marissa Alexander had never been arrested before she fired a bullet at a wall one day in 2010 to scare off her husband when she felt he was threatening her. Nobody got hurt, but this month a northeast Florida judge was bound by state law to sentence her to 20 years in prison.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/19/marissa-alexander-gets-20_n_1530035.html

 

Wtf

 

do you not perform any due diligence re: your commentary?

she left the scene to obtain the weapon, only then to return and fire off the shot. she had opportunity to escape; apples to oranges. oh, you may have also missed the fact that she had fired the weapon in the general direction of children.

[elusive4]

you don't fire a "warning shot" when implementing "stand your ground". it's shoot to kill.

[goDel]

A good account of what happened? By what standards?

 

While much of this background information proved inadmissible at trial, the characterizations of the two men helped drive an often racially charged polarization on the issue at the heart of the case -- whether the killing of Trayvon Martin was self-defense or murder.

Source: previously linked huffpo article

[elusive4]

for those who so often take to criticize the media, it is odd to see them then so complacently susceptible when it is in support to their pre-determined bias.

[goDel]

ehm, imo, the discussion at this point is more about the fairness of various laws playing out in practice than the specific content of the zimmerman case. both articles i linked to clearly suggest, imo, that it's fair to take a critical look at how the laws are put into practice in both cases.

so yes, i fully admit of not having all inside knowledge on both cases. But i still see some space to throw some jabs at the underlying legal implications. And seeing other sources, these discussions like these were already taking place before these two cases.

 

still though, i'd love if you answered my question: what makes you say there was a good account of what happened? if you want to prove me wrong, you should have plenty of material to show me i'm wrong, i presume. instead of calling me stupid (in other words), you could post some material and what not. not that hard, right?

[elusive4]

watch the trial for the first time.

[goDel]

thanks for the help.

 

got specific minutes and dates to see? or do you just want to punish me to sit through the enitre crapola?

:P

[pyramidpanes]

Zimmerman just got away with murder. Really disappointing verdict, im actually shocked by it and continued love to his family & friends for not only losing a loved one but also with the strength to go to the court having to hear audio of their son screaming and having to see pictures of his body and to then see the killer walk free from it.

ps screw those people that donated $130,000 to zimmerman. also why was the jury 90% white female?