Heartland

Anyone have any thoughts on the George Zimmerman / Trayvon Martin case?

I have to read infos about that case from many different source, to make my own thought/opinion. but frankly it's case of/for Amurikkka society, their law, seeing racial thing, and so. I could only judge that from my point of view.
however, before anything will be say about that, i would like to remind about very basic, fundamental rule: in dubio pro reo. If there is no 100% evidence of fault leave man free.
and manslaughter is also a serious charge.

These facts are not in dispute:

"On 26 February 2012 Martin was on his way home, minding his own business armed only with a can of iced tea and a bag of Skittles. Zimmerman pursued him, armed with a 9mm handgun, believing him to be a criminal. Martin resisted. They fought. Zimmerman shot him dead."

In any civilised society Zimmerman would have been jailed for murder.

if you put that like this, it's a murder, but then, what was (were) reason(s) for letting Zimmerman free? simply racism in amurika?
i'm not on any side, and i don't want to say anyting that would let you see me as racists (and i know how easy is put such label) just and only because i didn't say straightforward: Zimmerman is guilty.
i wasn't paying attention to that case, that's why i would like to read about that, i was quite busy during weekend.
but on the other hand, frankly, i don't care about that for reasons written before- amurika, their law, in fact their case. this case, as any other before, will not have impact of their law and culture. we can write about that, have quarrels, insult each other or in the other words have small on-line entertain, and maybe, btw learn something form eachother.
of course if it was cold blooded mureder, because of race and amurika gun control law, it's outrageous and shocking and it should be coneemnded by any rational, humanist man and woman.

We have people for that that are far better equipped to judge. They are plain and simply called -- judges.

Who am I to decide who is guilty in a country miles away, in a situation that is -again- blown up in the media beyond proportions?

About time the press shuts up until a judgement is made in ANY case, all over the world. Might make things a lot simpler really.

IZ.

(I've split the thread out)

By the way, under Florida law, if a murder suspect claims "self defense" the prosecution needs to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the killing wasn't such.

but it's double-edged sword, in a way that (as law) it shouldn't see colour of skin.
and Mark don't forget about evidence proceeding not let to do whatever you want (even that dummie, however it looks like another lawyers shtick/trick). and as Iz wrote- let judes judge, they have skills and knowlegde.

Bartek wrote:let judes judge, they have skills and knowlegde.

SHOULD have, of course

IZ.

of course, SHOULD. and how it is i'm getting to know day by day (as a legal trainee who works in law office).

Hm.

In the USA people of colour are several times more likely to be convicted than white people when accused of the same crimes. People of colour are given harsher sentences than white people when convicted of the same crimes.

markfiend wrote:These facts are not in dispute:

"On 26 February 2012 Martin was on his way home, minding his own business armed only with a can of iced tea and a bag of Skittles. Zimmerman pursued him, armed with a 9mm handgun, believing him to be a criminal. Martin resisted. They fought. Zimmerman shot him dead."

In any civilised society Zimmerman would have been jailed for murder.

That's already a slanted quote. That kid was far from being an angel.

markfiend wrote:Hm.

In the USA people of colour are several times more likely to be convicted than white people when accused of the same crimes. People of colour are given harsher sentences than white people when convicted of the same crimes.

Despite the usual racial histrionics that attend such things, I think this ultimately had little or nothing to do with race. A kid who styled himself a thug got into it with a guy who styled himself a cop. The event can be explained without the (frankly, corrosive) prism of race being involved. "Too much testosterone meets too much testosterone" is probably more accurate than "white hispanic racist kills angelic black boy." Things would never have reached that point if both of them hadn't made some unfortunate decisions that evening.

I have to agree, from the facts I have (none, since they all came from the media) you can only say Zimmerman overreacted.
he was aloud to wear arms and use them and so he did, but who is to blame? he or the country that made this possible.
Martin might not have done anything wrong, but I hear he resisted "arrest", how many times have I not seen stupid situations get out of hand because one person would not simply say he or she was sorry, just to give the other guy a break, maybe all this could have been averted if martin had cooperated a bit.
*edit!
I did not meant it to sound as if it was Martin's fault, sorry for that.

Ask yourself the question: What do you think would have happened if the situation had been identical except the races of the two protagonists switched? Because I think a black shooter would have been convicted in less time than it took to arrest Zimmerman.

sultan2075 wrote:

markfiend wrote:These facts are not in dispute:

"On 26 February 2012 Martin was on his way home, minding his own business armed only with a can of iced tea and a bag of Skittles. Zimmerman pursued him, armed with a 9mm handgun, believing him to be a criminal. Martin resisted. They fought. Zimmerman shot him dead."

In any civilised society Zimmerman would have been jailed for murder.

That's already a slanted quote. That kid was far from being an angel.

Where does that quote refer to Trayvon Martin as an angel?

The jury delivered its verdict - whether I agree with it makes no difference.
The prosecution was unable to prove that Zimmerman was guilty of the charges they were bringing. This would seem to indicate that the prosecution's case was either based on flimsy evidence or was poorly presented - but given that someone somewhere probably needed some media exposure for his upcoming run for DA or Governor it's hardly surprising that the case was brought in such haste. That the judge saw fit to instruct the jury to consider a lesser charge is indicative of the weakness of the case.

Was justice done? Depends on your definition. As far as the flappy-heads are concerned, a white(-ish) man shot and killed a black man, and appears to have got away with it. Having been "denied justice" in a criminal court there now appears to be a will to try Zimmerman in a civil case (which smacks of blood money). This I disagree with - you're tried, you're found not guilty, that's it. If there isn't the evidence to try the case in a criminal court, then there's no case to answer. This "we couldn't get him here, we'll get him there" mentality disturbs me. Civil courts have their place in cases of disagreements between people - he cut down my tree, ran over my cat, blocked my driveway - but homicide is a matter between a person and the state.

As far as I'm concerned, justice was done. The accused was tried by a jury, the prosecution failed to prove its case, the accused was found not guilty (which is different from innocent) - the justice system did exactly what it was supposed to do. You may not like the result, but sometimes we have to put up with things we don't like.

Do I think Zimmerman was guilty? No idea - I didn't see the evidence against him. The system has decreed that he is not guilty. Does the system ever get it wrong? Sure it does - and when it does there are grounds to retry the case. Nothing seems to suggest that there is anything non-kosher about the proceedings.

markfiend wrote:These facts are not in dispute:

"On 26 February 2012 Martin was on his way home, minding his own business armed only with a can of iced tea and a bag of Skittles. Zimmerman pursued him, armed with a 9mm handgun, believing him to be a criminal. Martin resisted. They fought. Zimmerman shot him dead."

In any civilised society Zimmerman would have been jailed for murder.

I have a rule that says whenever someone states something as fact, be very sceptical - if someone is saying it it's because they want you to believe them. So ask yourself, what agenda is being pushed here? Looks at the "facts" and ask yourself "how much of this is fact, and how much is hearsay riding its coat-tails?"

Only some of this is fact:

1. On 26 February 2012 Martin was on his way home.
His destination and motive for being in the neighbourhood is unclear. Opinion is that he was on his way home, but it isn't fact.

2. minding his own business
Conjecture - we have no way of knowing what he was thinking.

3. armed only with a can of iced tea and a bag of Skittles
The use of "armed" here is emotive and inappropriate. Martin was carrying a can of iced tea and a bag of Skittles. Probably also keys, wallet, phone, but a laundry list of the contents of his pockets doesn't meet the needs of the commentator.

4. Zimmerman pursued him
Conjecture. Maybe he did, but we've only got his word for it.

5. believing him to be a criminal
Again - we only have Zimmerman's accounts of the event.

6. armed with a 9mm handgun
Fact. Selective, true (see above concerning keys, phone, wallet, etc), but he was armed with a 9mm handgun. The use of "armed" here is justified - he was carrying a firearm.

7. Martin resisted.
Resisted what? How do you resist a pursuit? Well, apart from not running? Again, conjecture - the commentator is trying to paint a scene which is not supported by the facts.

8. They fought.
Probably true - the evidence points to a struggle.

9. Zimmerman shot him dead.
Fact.

On 26 February 2012 Trayvon Martin was unarmed. He and Zimmerman got into a fight. Zimmerman shot him dead with a 9mm handgun. These are the facts. Murder has some very very exacting standards for proof, which is as it should be. The prosecution failed to prove it. Zimmerman walks. *That* is the hallmark of civilised society: presumption of innocence and respect for the rule of law.

That description of what occurred was agreed, more or less, by both prosecution and defence.

It does, of course, leave out some details. That Zimmerman, after phoning the police to report Martin "behaving suspiciously" was told not to get out of his car and pursue him. That Zimmerman did so anyway. That Zimmerman told the police dispatcher over the phone "Fucing punks. These assholes. They always get away." These facts, taken together with the fact that Zimmerman was carrying a gun is suggestive of premeditation, n'est-ce pas?

And while yes, it is arguably the case that according to the letter of Florida law, Zimmerman ought to have been acquited, can we not condemn as unjust a situation in which this obtains? It seems to me that even spinning the case as charitably as you can, Florida law now states that you can pick a fight with someone, and then when you start to lose, legally shoot and kill them.

Legal? Maybe. Just? Hell no.

It's a description of what occurred, as agreed to by the prosecution and defence - so it's a story that two people agree to tell. It's not fact. Premeditation is a tough one - clearly Zimmerman was determined to take matters into his own hands, but whether the shooting was premeditated? Certainly he seems intent on preventing this "punk" and "a$$hole" from getting away - but the carrying of a gun I don't think can be taken as indicative. There's nothing to suggest that Zimmerman didn't carry a gun when he wasn't doing neighbourhood watch, and if Florida is a state (like Arizona) where citizens routinely carry firearms then this is not pertinent.

We can certainly condemn as "morally unjust" a situation where this kind of thing happens - there's plenty of blame to go around - and look for solutions. But we need to take care - "just" under the law has defined parameters, "just" in our perception of the thing doesn't. And everyone will have a different opinion. Which is why we have laws. Which are supposed to apply to everyone equally.

The letter of the law was followed, which is as it should be. If we believe this law to be unjust, then we have avenues to follow - petitioning representatives, running for office, circulating petitions, picketing, rallies, etc.
But a lot of what I've seen so far is people implying that Zimmerman should have been convicted largely on the basis of the colour of his skin, and that of his victim's. We may not like the results of the laws we pass, but we only have ourselves to blame. If we don't like the laws, change them - but we cannot expect to be happy with the outcome of every case.

I do like what i read EB. i can sign under every single word you wrote so far in this thread.
even that is, in fact, reminding a very basic, fundamental things (why we set a rule of law- a state- reminding once again in dubio pro reo rule, greyness of world and life), i see myself that this thing have to be reminded time and time again, because that emotional/people justice (will) lead us nowhere; maybe to anarchy, state of chaos, where 'my >just<' is better than your, where reasons, evidences, proving guilt over EVERY doubt, doesn't matter, because we 'know' (or we've been shown/learn) the 'truth'.

EvilBastard wrote:The letter of the law was followed, which is as it should be. If we believe this law to be unjust, then we have avenues to follow - petitioning representatives, running for office, circulating petitions, picketing, rallies, etc.

Said "etc." to include posting on message boards to try to persuade one's friends of one's point of view

EvilBastard wrote:We may not like the results of the laws we pass, but we only have ourselves to blame.

Well quite.

Bartek wrote:emotional/people justice (will) lead us nowhere

I disagree with that. Martin Luther King was, by all accounts, quite emotionally involved in the civil rights movement.

True social change is not accomplished by coolly sitting discussing the facts. It is only when people get passionately involved, when they get angry, that they get things done.

"It is only when people get passionately involved, when they get angry, that they get things done."
we (I) call that revolution, which is exactly what i was writing about.

i don't get it there, so what was the point of starting this thread here, on a discussion forum where people ... talk, not act?
and this coolly sitting discussion the facts is what we should do, or at least ought and try, because is lot easier to pull a trigger than to convince someone to put gun away.

markfiend wrote:

EvilBastard wrote:The letter of the law was followed, which is as it should be. If we believe this law to be unjust, then we have avenues to follow - petitioning representatives, running for office, circulating petitions, picketing, rallies, etc.

Said "etc." to include posting on message boards to try to persuade one's friends of one's point of view

I'd never be so foolish as to think that I could persuade anyone around here of my point of view But we are mostly grown-ups, and I think we can say "we believe in the same thing at the end of the day, and while we differ in the minutiae of what that is we agree that there is a better way to do what we do. So we can work to that end, and as long as changes get made it doesn't really matter who makes them."

Changes happen when people get passionate about something, but we must take care not to let our passions run away with our reason. x-President Morsi is finding out what happens when you do.

That case is a fine example for why you shouldn't arm stupid people.