News Is Canada a Safer Alternative After Zimmerman Verdict?

[russ_watters]

I fail to see how there is no relation between the stand-your-ground law, and this case.

You yourself recall the information that Trayvon Martin was claimed to be on top of George Zimmerman, beating him, at the time when George Zimmerman shot him. The relation between the stand-your-ground law and this scenario is incredibly overwhelming.

I don't think you understand what "stand your ground" is about. "Stand your ground" says you don't have to try to escape when challenged. Since Zimmerman was on the ground, being beaten, when he shot Martin, it didn't apply. So while his defense had the opportunity to request a hearing on Stand Your Ground basis, they chose not to because they recognized it wasn't relevant:

Self-defense laws in the United States, particularly regarding justifiable homicide, vary by state. Florida law, as of 2005, includes a "stand your ground" provision, under which a person, who reasonably fears death or great bodily harm (the ordinary deadly self-defense requirement) is relieved of the common-law requirement that one first attempt to retreat, if one can safely do so, before using deadly force.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#.22Stand_your_ground.22_laws

 

[russ_watters]

Perhaps Martin, who was unarmed, was defending himself the only way he could.

Here's the most critical problem with the prosecution's case: They had no theory of the crime that fit the evidence.

Initially, the prosecution forwarded the theory that Zimmerman was on top, which I believe they needed in order to avoid a self defense verdict. But that theory fell apart when both forensic evidence and witness testimony corroborated the fact that Zimmerman was on the bottom - so they abandoned it. The forensic evidence in particular was pretty clear:

1. Wounds to the back of Zimmerman's head that indicate he was lying on his back, with his head being slammed into the ground.
2. Wounds on Zimmerman's face indicating that he was being punched in the face.
3. Wounds to Martin's hands from striking Zimmerman.
4. No wounds to Zimmerman's hands or Martin's face to indicate Zimmerman ever landed a punch.
5. Gunshot residue patterns indicating Martin's shirt was away from his body when he was shot: he was leaning forward.

All of that paints a specific picture of what happened: Martin was beating Zimmerman pretty badly when Zimmerman shot him. How exactly they got into the physical fight is not completely clear of course. Perhaps Zimmerman took one swing that didn't land and after that it was all Martin? I don't know, but there isn't any evidence of that which would wipe away the self defense evidence.

 

[Evo]

I don't think you understand what "stand your ground" is about. "Stand your ground" says you don't have to try to escape when challenged. Since Zimmerman was on the ground, being beaten, when he shot Martin, it didn't apply. So while his defense had the opportunity to request a hearing on Stand Your Ground basis, they chose not to because they recognized it wasn't relevant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#.22Stand_your_ground.22_laws

The 911 calls from witnesses say that two men were arguing, then started to wrestle and that one started to scream for help and was shot. Listen to these calls. There is not one person saying that one was beating the other.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/03/what-happened-trayvon-martin-explained

If you look at the pictures of Zimmerman after he was taken in that night, he had a tiny scratch on the bridge of his nose and two very tiny superficial scratches on the back of his head. Did you read the experts testimony on his lack of injuries that I posted?

Zimmerman's injuries could be that he was punched in the nose and fell backwards and hit his head. Zimmerman's injuries were very minimal, not at all representative of a beating.

A medical examiner who looked at the photographs and records of George Zimmerman said the injuries to the neighborhood watch volunteer were insignificant, as the prosecution and defense in the murder trial argued about whether Zimmerman embellished his accounts of his confrontation with an unarmed Trayvon Martin.

Perhaps the biggest contradiction is Zimmerman’s claim that he was repeatedly beaten by Martin. Zimmerman has said his head was struck against the concrete sidewalk by Martin who rained a series of blows — more than two dozen in one account — on the volunteer.

Photographs show that Zimmerman had a bloody nose and two lacerations to the back of his head — wounds that the prosecution has insisted are too minor to have come from a severe attack by Martin.

Dr. Valerie Rao, the Jacksonville, Fla., medical examiner for Duval, Clay and Nassau counties, testified that she reviewed Zimmerman’s photographs and medical records. She was not involved in the autopsy of Martin.

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.”

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/...man-medical-examiner-20130702,0,1358679.story

Lets not assume that Zimmerman is telling the truth when live calls to 911 don't corroborate his story.

 

[russ_watters]

Indeed. Let's stick to the facts here. So Physics_UG, I want to hear some reference that backs up your story.[RE: Zimmerman as a racist]

FYI, for all: There is an awful lot of misinformation flying around here that was fomented by a malicious media. But the Wiki on the case lays the facts and malfeasance out pretty well. A number of NBC employees were fired for editing the 911 call to cut out where the 911 operator asked for a description of Martin and splice together different parts where Zimmerman described him as suspicious and black. And the lawsuit is underway: I expect Zimmerman will win.

Between March 19 and 27, 2012, the NBC Nightly News, NBC's Today show, and NBC's network-owned Miami affiliate WTVJ NBC6[365] ran segments which misleadingly merged parts of Zimmerman's call. On one version of the recording played by NBC, Zimmerman was heard saying, "This guy looks like he's up to no good or he's on drugs or something... He's got his hand in his waistband, and he's a black male."[366] In another what was played was, "This guy looks like he's up to no good. He looks black." In the original 9-1-1 recording, Zimmerman said: "This guy looks like he's up to no good. Or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about." The 9-1-1 operator then asked: "OK, and this guy, is he black, white or Hispanic?", and Zimmerman answered, "He looks black."[312] The phrase, "He's got his hand in his waistband, and he's a black male" came several exchanges after that point in the conversation.[367][368]

Erik Wemple of the Washington Post wrote that NBC's alterations "would more readily paint Zimmerman as a racial profiler. In reality... Zimmerman simply answered a question...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#Misleading_audio_editing_by_NBC

The next section of the wiki is about how another network aired a video of Zimmerman and commented on how it didn't look like he had any injuries when you could clearly see that he had two head wounds.

Given all of the media malfeasance, it should not be surprising that even well educated people on PF have such factually wrong understandings of the facts of this case.

 

[KC_Smallz]

You can kill them, but then you are guilty of at least manslaughter.

Nope self defense. That's why he got off they couldn't prove that it wasn't out of self defense. Also I don't think they know who attacked who.

 

[KC_Smallz]

Am I the only one who thinks Martin was a big city hoodlum who jumped the wrong country boy?(duck and cover)

old jim

Nope.

 

[Evo]

Nope.

Then you need to read what I posted above.

 

[KC_Smallz]

Didn't follow this case at all , all I know is the murderer is a middle-aged white guy and the victim a black guy and that everybody thinks the killer should be convicted (I'm unaware if there's enough information available for the public to have an informed opinion , is there?).It seems that the interest of this case is very racial in nature.

I say who cares about their race , just give him a fair trial and let the justice system operate like they always do , for better or for worst.

The new trend in social medias with people regrouping and putting other people on their own amateurish trial is starting to worry me to be honest.

He's half Hispanic.

 

[KC_Smallz]

Then you need to read what I posted above.

Which one?

 

[Evo]

FYI, for all: There is an awful lot of misinformation flying around here that was fomented by a malicious media. But the Wiki on the case lays the facts and malfeasance out pretty well. A number of NBC employees were fired for editing the 911 call to cut out where the 911 operator asked for a description of Martin and splice together different parts where Zimmerman described him as suspicious and black. And the lawsuit is underway: I expect Zimmerman will win.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#Misleading_audio_editing_by_NBC

The next section of the wiki is about how another network aired a video of Zimmerman and commented on how it didn't look like he had any injuries when you could clearly see that he had two head wounds.

Given all of the media malfeasance, it should not be surprising that even well educated people on PF have such factually wrong understandings of the facts of this case.

I posted a link previously with a number of the calls Zimmerman made to the police department about "blacks" in the neighborhood. But this isn't about if he was a racist, it's about him being a self appointed vigilante that didn't follow the rules. Do you deny that if he had followed the rules that nothing would have happened and that kid would still be alive? That's what this is about. He broke the rules and needlessly caused the end of the life of that kid. I hope that Trayvon's family sues Zimmerman for wrongful death, they will surely win. I am so disheartened by the people here that seem to miss the tragedy of what happened because of this person that decided to take the law into his own hands, that they even seem happy about it. Disgusting.

Let me repeat, if he had followed the rules, none of this would have happened.

 

[KC_Smallz]

I posted a link previously with a number of the calls Zimmerman made to the police department about "blacks" in the neighborhood. But this isn't about if he was a racist, it's about him being a self appointed vigilante that didn't follow the rules.

I myself am not racist, but do know that the likely hood of a young black male wearing his hood up in a wealthy neighborhood being up to no good is very high. Not to say that it's because he's black, but you know what I mean. Zimmerman was on neighborhood watch, and there was a shady character in his neighborhood. While he was doing nothing wrong, can you blame him for his suspicion?

 

[russ_watters]

This case should never have gone to trial as second degree murder. Classical prosecutorial excess.

The way you phrased that, I can only half agree: IMO the case should not have gone to trial at all. The problem faced by the prosecution in choosing the charges is that the charges have to fit the theory about what happened. If Zimmerman is a racist who hunted down a black man to kill, that really is 2nd degree murder. But the evidence just doesn't support that and the prosecution's case fell apart due to the clear evidence that Zimmerman was on the bottom, so they threw-in involuntary manslaughter at the end as an additional possibility. But involuntary means without malice aforethought and if there was no malice, then why was the prosecution trying to hard to prove malice? I think they threw up a hail mary at the end that probably hurt more than helped.

 

[lurflurf]

^Zimmerman claims he was on the ground being beaten. The evidence is not consistent with that. Zimmerman's injuries were insignificant, Martin's has no offensive injuries, blood splatter was not consistent Zimmerman's version, with it is difficult to draw a gun and shoot someone who is onto of you beating you. Even if it happened as Zimmerman describes we have B walking home doing nothing wrong, A mentally ill engaging in vigilante fetish play, A stalkes B in a car, A chases B on foot with gun, B in fear for his like "attacks for no reason" (in fact if there was any attack the reason was fear of death), A despite martial arts training and instigating the attack gets a boo boo, A shoots child dead, months later idiots celebrate. That is a very inclusive definition of self defense. Maybe Zimmerman should not have been convicted, but either way he should be ashamed.


To everyone of legal age now is the time to get tattoo of
$$\large{\mathbb{Z}}$$
on your forehead
surely in five years it will still seem like a good idea

 

[Evo]

I myself am not racist, but do know that the likely hood of a young black male wearing his hood up in a wealthy neighborhood being up to no good is very high. Not to say that it's because he's black, but you know what I mean. Zimmerman was on neighborhood watch, and there was a shady character in his neighborhood. While he was doing nothing wrong, can you blame him for his suspicion?

Zimmerman wasn't on watch that night. It was raining, of course the kid had his hood up. Do you know anything about this case?

 

[WannabeNewton]

Maybe Zimmerman should not have been convicted, but either way he should be ashamed.

These kinds of ill-fated deaths are not uncommon by any means of course because people of various ages are killed all the time; the media certainly glorified this case like crazy to the point of inciting needless riots across the country. But what does it matter in the end; it won't bring the kid back to life. I can't imagine being that kid's parents.

 

[russ_watters]

Attached is the portion of the jury instructions dealing with self-defense, so you have some context.
EDIT: Wow, it looks like I missed the very next sentence: "However, if from the evidence you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that George Zimmerman was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find him guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved." So it's just the usual burden of proof for the prosecution.

I do indeed read it the same way you do. That surprises me. I was under the impression that self defense was typically an affirmative defense, but like you said it logically can't be both at the same time. Ie, a 25% chance it was self defense means only a 75% chance it wasn't, which isn't beyond a reasonable doubt.

I don't think there is any precise cutoff for reasonable. In most cases one would not be able to assign a numerical chance. A 25% chance is certainly reasonable. A 1% chance might even be reasonable, but would result in few convictions.

You are correct and I was just using it for illustrative purposes. Still, I'd think 90% would probably be a good standard. At 99% you start getting into some wild theories to fill the last 1%.

 

[KC_Smallz]

Zimmerman wasn't on watch that night. It was raining, of course the kid had his hood up. Do you know anything about this case?

If you're on neighborhood watch (at least where I'm from) you're always "on watch." I did know it was raining, which makes sense. All I'm saying is see both sides. Trayvon didn't deserve to die. But I also don't think Zimmerman deserves abuse for make a spurt of the moment eat or be eaten decision. Was it the wrong one, yes. Did he try to kill him? That really depends on whose story you believe.

 

[Evo]

If you're on neighborhood watch (at least where I'm from) you're always "on watch." I did know it was raining, which makes sense. All I'm saying is see both sides. Trayvon didn't deserve to die. But I also don't think Zimmerman deserves abuse for make a spurt of the moment eat or be eaten decision. Was it the wrong one, yes. Did he try to kill him? That really depends on whose story you believe.

I agree. The sad thing is that if Zimmerman had followed his neighborhood watch rules, he would have reported it and then gone home. The rules clearly state not to get involved, not to pursue. The Martins have an iron clad wrongful death suit, IMO, based on Zimmerman's actions. Perhaps that was all this should have been, taking the Florida law into account.

 

[KC_Smallz]

I agree. The sad thing is that if Zimmerman had followed his neighborhood watch rules, he would have reported it and then gone home. The rules clearly state not to get involved, not to pursue.

Yes, he shouldn't have. I just don't see race as a motive. Very sad situation. Although I personally agree with the verdict I immensely sympathize with the Martin family. I can't imagine how difficult their situation is.

 

[russ_watters]

The 911 calls from witnesses say that two men were arguing, then started to wrestle and that one started to scream for help and was shot. Listen to these calls. There is not one person saying that one was beating the other.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/03/what-happened-trayvon-martin-explained

Evo, you just can't take a March article from Mother Jones (!) at face value. The media is *lying to you* and you are buying it. At trial, that just isn't how it went:

Two witnesses called by the prosecution today described George Zimmerman as being on the losing end of a fight with Trayvon Martin in the moments before Zimmerman shot the Florida teenager.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zim...tion-witnesses/story?id=19517236#.UeTYFfnVD9U

Did you read the experts testimony on his lack of injuries that I posted?

Yes, I did. She said the injuries were not life threatening. You do understand that the injuries don't have to be life threatening in order for Zimmerman to feel his life is threatened, right?

Zimmerman's injuries could be that he was punched in the nose and fell backwards and hit his head.

Could be, yes. Is "could be" good enough to get a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt?

Zimmerman's injuries were very minimal, not at all representative of a beating.

I've bumped my head a number of times without drawing blood and still felt like i got my bell rung. I can't see considering a bump on the head that is hard enough to draw blood to not be considered "a beating".

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/...man-medical-examiner-20130702,0,1358679.story

Lets not assume that Zimmerman is telling the truth when live calls to 911 don't corroborate his story.

I'm really not clear on what you are claiming there, Evo. Qualitative labeling is not how you make a case: The fact of the matter is that Zimmerman had multiple wounds sustained at the hands of Martin, who was in a position of dominance. That's completely consistent with the factual content of Zimmerman's testimony.

 

[KC_Smallz]

Evo, you just can't take a March article from Mother Jones (!) at face value. The media is *lying to you* and you are buying it. At trial, that just isn't how it went:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zim...tion-witnesses/story?id=19517236#.UeTYFfnVD9U
Yes, I did. She said the injuries were not life threatening. You do understand that the injuries don't have to be life threatening in order for Zimmerman to feel his life is threatened, right?
Could be, yes. Is "could be" good enough to get a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt? I've bumped my head a number of times without drawing blood and still felt like i got my bell rung. I can't see considering a bump on the head that is hard enough to draw blood to not be considered "a beating".
I'm really not clear on what you are claiming there, Evo. Qualitative labeling is not how you make a case: The fact of the matter is that Zimmerman had multiple wounds sustained at the hands of Martin, who was in a position of dominance. That's completely consistent with the factual content of Zimmerman's testimony.

This is why I think the verdict was correct. He shot him out of self defense.

 

[russ_watters]

Do you deny that if he had followed the rules that nothing would have happened and that kid would still be alive? That's what this is about...

If Zimmerman had shown better judgement, Martin would still be alive. And if Martin had shown better judgement, he would still be alive. But neither of those things automatically mean a crime was committed.

 

[Evo]

Evo, you just can't take a March article from Mother Jones (!) at face value. The media is *lying to you* and you are buying it. At trial, that just isn't how it went:

Uhm, Russ, did you listen to the 911 calls? That's what I posted it for. I didn't post it for the article. They don't corroborate later "testimony". It has nothing to do with media reports, it's the live calls from eye witnesses as it happened.

The things said later don't match the live calls.

Listen to the live calls.

 

[daveyrocket]

The 911 calls from witnesses say that two men were arguing, then started to wrestle and that one started to scream for help and was shot. Listen to these calls. There is not one person saying that one was beating the other.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/03/what-happened-trayvon-martin-explained

If you look at the pictures of Zimmerman after he was taken in that night, he had a tiny scratch on the bridge of his nose and two very tiny superficial scratches on the back of his head. Did you read the experts testimony on his lack of injuries that I posted?

Zimmerman's injuries could be that he was punched in the nose and fell backwards and hit his head. Zimmerman's injuries were very minimal, not at all representative of a beating.

This doesn't look very insignificant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:George_Zimmerman_front_of_head.jpg
How does that look minimal to you?

According to the wikipedia page on the trial itself, the EMT on the scene, Stacy Livingston, testified that

she treated Zimmerman at the scene, who had a swollen, bleeding nose and two cuts on the back of his head. When [she was] asked if Zimmerman should have been concerned with his medical well-being because of his injuries, Livingston said, "Possibly."

Dr. Vincent Di Maio, a forensic pathologist and gunshot wound expert, testified that

Zimmerman had at least six injuries from the struggle: two head lacerations, two wounds to his temples and wounds on his nose and forehead. Di Maio said those injuries were consistent with Zimmerman having his head banged into a sidewalk, and that such injuries can be dangerous. Di Maio stated it's possible to receive trauma without visible wounds, testifying that, "You can get severe trauma to the head without external injuries, actually."' Di Maio said Zimmerman's nose may have been fractured, which was consistent with Zimmerman being punched in the nose.

Also, John Good's testimony:

Jonathan (John) Good, a neighbor at the retreat, testified that he heard a faint noise outside and he could not tell the direction. As the noises grew louder, he looked outside through his blinds. He opened his door and looked out and saw "some sort of tussle" where the participants were on the ground. He called out "what's going on" and "stop it" as he started to step outside. Good said the participant wearing "dark or black" was on top, and the person wearing "red or white" was on the bottom, and the person on the bottom had lighter skin. He described the person on top had their legs straddling the person on the bottom, who was face up.

He could not hear any pounding or hitting, but did see "downward arm motion, multiple times" that "looked like punches" from the person on top. He heard a "help" from the person on the bottom, and Good said "cut it out", and that he was going to call 9-1-1. He went back inside to call 9-1-1, but he heard a gunshot before the call was completed. Good's call to 911 was played for the jury.

It sounds like he's describing Trayvon on top of Zimmerman either punching him of slamming his head into the ground, which seems entirely consistent with Zimmerman's story.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_George_Zimmerman

 

[russ_watters]

^Zimmerman claims he was on the ground being beaten. The evidence is not consistent with that.

False.

Zimmerman's injuries were insignificant...

Er, well, "insignificant" is qualitative. The fact is, he had injuries.

Martin's has no offensive injuries...

False. That's another lie often repeated in the media. Here's the truth:

The medical examiner found two injuries on Martin’s body: the fatal gunshot wound on his chest and broken skin on his knuckles, according to WFTV.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...uckles-report-article-1.1079190#ixzz2ZBTz9clE

...blood splatter was not consistent Zimmerman's version...

The lack of blood spatter is not telling evidence considering it was raining when the incident happened.

...with it is difficult to draw a gun and shoot someone who is onto of you beating you.

But not impossible.

 

[Evo]

If Zimmerman had shown better judgement, Martin would still be alive. And if Martin had shown better judgement, he would still be alive. But neither of those things automatically mean a crime was committed.

Martin was walking home when some nutbag self appointed vigilante decided not to wait for the real police. He didn't even have any reason to call the police because as it has been pointed out, only "suspicious" behavior is to be reported, such as peering into windows. He was wrong to even report Martin's presence. I can't believe that you are defending that nuts actions. Are you wanting us to take you seriously? On what grounds do you think Zimmerman's actions were warranted? Based on the neighborhood watch rules. I want to know.

 

[jim hardy]

Well there'll probably be another media circus over this:

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
(1) 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,

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html

I don't know what to make of it. I guess Florida won't entertain a civil suit .

 

[russ_watters]

Uhm, Russ, did you listen to the 911 calls? That's what I posted it for. I didn't post it for the article. They don't corroborate later "testimony". It has nothing to do with media reports, it's the live calls from eye witnesses as it happened.

The things said later don't match the live calls.

Listen to the live calls.

Ok... in that case then you are willfully, selectively ignoring eyewitness testimony during the trial. You're right: I can't blame that on Mother Jones.

Just to be clear: are you claiming the only available eyewitness testimony came from the 911 calls? Are you saying there were no additional witnesses and that those who called 911 reported absolutely everything they saw in the 911 calls?

 

[russ_watters]

I can't believe that you are defending that nuts actions. Are you wanting us to take you seriously? On what grounds do you think Zimmerman's actions were warranted? Based on the rules. I want to know.

Did you not read what I wrote? I said Zimmerman showed poor judgement. He should not have gotten out of his car and followed Martin. Are you not able to compartmentalize the different actions Zimmerman took and judge them separately? Don't lump me into that black and white world.

 

[Evo]

Did you not read what I wrote? I said Zimmerman showed poor judgement. He should not have gotten out of his car and followed Martin. Are you not able to compartmentalize the different actions Zimmerman took and judge them separately? Don't lump me into that black and white world.

So you agree that this whole incident is the result of willfull defiance of the neighborhood watch rules, and that Zimmerman acted wrongfully.

This has nothing to do with the court case. Just that Zimmerman is at fault for causing the entire incident.

 

[lurflurf]

How does that look minimal to you?

Yep minimal. If you had to sustain Zimmermans's injuries or Martin's which would you prefer? I wish Zimmerman had more injuries, Martin might still be alive.

 

[BobG]

So you agree that this whole incident is the result of willfull defiance of the neighborhood watch rules, and that Zimmerman acted wrongfully.

This has nothing to do with the court case. Just that Zimmerman is at fault for causing the entire incident.

Zimmerman is guilty of being annoying. He's a self-appointed neighborhood watch guy with no real training. Even your better neighborhood watch groups aren't official in any way. They can receive some helpful tips from real police departments who certainly fear Zimmerman-Martin type incidents as much as they appreciate the help from neighborhood watch groups.

Still, it isn't a crime to ask neighborhood residents what they're doing and where they're going. If he's doing this on dark, rainy night and I don't know he's the neighborhood watch guy, I might suspect drugs or mental illness and call the police to come check on him for his own good, but it's still not a crime.

I have my doubts as to whether Zimmerman really backed off when reprimanded by the police dispatcher. I think Zimmerman knew the dispatcher had no authority and could only suggest. In fact, a few parts of Zimmerman's story were questionable even if the evidence backed up most of his story.

To find him guilty of manslaughter, I think they had to prove how the confrontation started and how it went from verbal to physical. They didn't do that. I know as little about how the confrontation started after the trial as I did before the trial.

The trial did show that Martin was winning the confrontation and the trial did show that Zimmerman almost certainly shot Martin while Martin was still leaning over Zimmerman. Unless you can prove Zimmerman started the physical confrontation, that's self defense. (He's defending himself even if he did start the confrontation, but you don't get off scott free just because you started something and had it go horribly wrong.)

As to how Zimmerman got his gun out? Well, he obviously did. In fact, one part of Zimmerman's story that I had trouble believing was the part where Zimmerman thought he'd missed Martin with his shot. That suggested some separation between Martin and Zimmerman. Then the forensic evidence showed Martin was almost certainly shot while still on top of Zimmerman, which made one wonder how Zimmerman could have possibly thought he missed? If both the evidence and Zimmerman's story are true, Zimmerman probably did have trouble getting his gun out and probably wasn't even sure he was pointing it at Martin when he pulled the trigger. After some thought, it made Zimmerman's story even more believable.

 

[Astronuc]

It comes down to whether or not Travon Martin was defending himself, i.e., he was 'standing his ground' in an unprovoked attack by an armed assailant, Zimmerman. If some stranger pursued me in my neighborhood and became more aggressive, I might be inclined to 'defend' myself if I felt I could not get away and call the police.

It seems there is agreement that Zimmerman initiated the altercation, whatever the reason/motive.

Zimmerman was not authorized to take the action he did. It was only necessary to notify the police and have them deal with it. It would seem Zimmerman crossed the line and forced an action that deprived Martin of due process and ultimately his life.

 

[Curious3141]

It's interesting to compare this case to another recent judgement in Florida, where a person who *didn't* kill (or even hurt) anyone with a warning shot got 20 years.

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/soci...rs-firing-warning-shot-while-george-zimmerman

The case was clearly different, but the most glaring thing to me is that the defendant was a black woman. Didn't matter that the man she was trying to warn off was her abusive husband against whom she had a restraining order. She still got 20 years, while Zimmerman walks free after killing a black kid.

Sure, we can argue legalistic semantics about how the two cases cannot be compared, but ask yourself this: when you look at the two verdicts, do you really *feel* the cause of justice is being served down there in Florida? I sure as heck don't.

 

[daveyrocket]

So the story of Zimmerman provoking Martin is what exactly?

Zimmerman, who was a racist, negro-hating white/Hispanic supremacist, armed with a loaded gun, stalked Martin and... what? He was armed with a gun but picked a fist-fight with his "prey" and then was losing? A guy with a loaded gun, stalking another individual and then picking a fist fight but not even landing a punch on the other person, and not even taking the gun out until he was losing the fight?

How did Zimmerman force Martin to attack him?

Yep minimal. If you had to sustain Zimmermans's injuries or Martin's which would you prefer? I wish Zimmerman had more injuries, Martin might still be alive.

No, not minimal. Head injuries have potential to be very serious. Comparison of their injuries is irrelevant. The question is did Zimmerman have reason to believe that his life was in danger. The jury thought that he did. If Zimmerman didn't have a gun, he might have suffered brain damage or death, and then Martin would probably be in jail for assault or possibly second degree murder.

 

[nsaspook]

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/soci...rs-firing-warning-shot-while-george-zimmerman
Sure, we can argue legalistic semantics about how the two cases cannot be compared, but ask yourself this: when you look at the two verdicts, do you really *feel* the cause of justice is being served down there in Florida? I sure as heck don't.

That case really about mandatory minimums for gun crimes not 'stand your ground'. She was offered a 3 year sentence but turned it down and was hit by the mandatory minimum times when found guilty.

 

[daveyrocket]

It's interesting to compare this case to another recent judgement in Florida, where a person who *didn't* kill (or even hurt) anyone with a warning shot got 20 years.

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/soci...rs-firing-warning-shot-while-george-zimmerman

The case was clearly different, but the most glaring thing to me is that the defendant was a black woman. Didn't matter that the man she was trying to warn off was her abusive husband against whom she had a restraining order. She still got 20 years, while Zimmerman walks free after killing a black kid.

Sure, we can argue legalistic semantics about how the two cases cannot be compared, but ask yourself this: when you look at the two verdicts, do you really *feel* the cause of justice is being served down there in Florida? I sure as heck don't.

Well, the wikipedia description of that case:

In May 2012, Corey prosecuted 31-year-old Marissa Alexander and obtained a mandatory minimum sentence of 20 years in prison. Alexander had a restraining order issued against her ex husband at the time and, during the day of the incident, had returned to their old home to collect clothes and some possessions thinking he was not there. Her ex husband was there, with their children, and they began to argue. After the argument became heated, Marissa Alexander returned to her car, picked up her firearm, and returned inside the house where she threatened him with the handgun before firing a warning shot into the wall. She was charged with reckless endangerment of children and threatening with a deadly weapon. Despite being offered a 3 year sentence and later a probational sentence with time served, Alexander chose to attempt a SYG defence at trial. She was found guilty and according to Floridas gun laws (where 10 years can be added for committing a crime while carrying a firearm, with an added 10 years for discharging a firearm during a crime) was sentenced to 20 years.

What stands out for me here is that she left the house, went to her car, got her gun and came back in and threatened her ex-husband by firing a warning shot, while her three children were in the house. The charges of reckless endangerment of children and threatening with a deadly weapon seem appropriate.

What really stands out for me is that there are a lot of news sources that seem to think it's okay to leave out important details of a case in order to write a sensational article about racism. And what really really stands out for me is how people think they can read a few articles on the internet and think that they can make better judgments about cases than a jury who has been presented with the entire body of relevant evidence.

 

[Office_Shredder]

It's interesting to compare this case to another recent judgement in Florida, where a person who *didn't* kill (or even hurt) anyone with a warning shot got 20 years.

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/soci...rs-firing-warning-shot-while-george-zimmerman

The case was clearly different, but the most glaring thing to me is that the defendant was a black woman. Didn't matter that the man she was trying to warn off was her abusive husband against whom she had a restraining order. She still got 20 years, while Zimmerman walks free after killing a black kid.

Sure, we can argue legalistic semantics about how the two cases cannot be compared, but ask yourself this: when you look at the two verdicts, do you really *feel* the cause of justice is being served down there in Florida? I sure as heck don't.

When Iread the title of that news story, you know what I think? I think, "Gee, I'm glad I'm getting an unbiased, full account of the story here. Yup, that's what's happening"

Or maybe not. Anyway, here's the other side of the story
http://www.scribd.com/doc/89763383/States-Motion-in-Opposition-of-Defendants-Motion-for-Immunity

 

[D H]

If Zimmerman didn't have a gun, he might have suffered brain damage or death, and then Martin would probably be in jail for assault or possibly second degree murder.

Possibly not. We'll never know what might have transpired had Zimmerman ended up being the one who died, but I suspect Martin would also have been found not guilty on the grounds of self defense.

 

[daveyrocket]

I don't have that same suspicion. I think that if Zimmerman didn't have a gun, Martin would have had a much more difficult time showing in court that he had reason to believe that his life was in danger, considering that before he was shot the only injury M sustained was on his knuckles from beating Z.

 

[WannabeNewton]

Sure, we can argue legalistic semantics about how the two cases cannot be compared, but ask yourself this: when you look at the two verdicts, do you really *feel* the cause of justice is being served down there in Florida? I sure as heck don't.

It's probably not worth making any sense out of what happens in Florida. Save yourself the trouble.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

It's probably not worth making any sense out of what happens in Florida. Save yourself the trouble.

Now that's something I can agree with. This is the state that gave us the hanging chads (2000 election), Casey Anthony's acquittal and Professor James Tracy (who effectively accused the grieving Newtown, CT parents of participating in a massive fraud).

 

[jim hardy]

I think this will somehow make its way to supreme court as a federal challenge to all the state "stand your ground" laws.

 

[nsaspook]

I think this will somehow make its way to supreme court as a federal challenge to all the state "stand your ground" laws.

I think it's very unlikely that any sort of Federal challenge will succeed in over-turning a general state law based on the Castle doctrine “no duty to retreat” and it's also very unlikely anything from this or Marissa Alexander's case will help either side in that challenge.

Oregon Law: http://lawofselfdefense.com/law_case/state-v-sandoval-156-p-3d-60-or-supreme-court-2007/
http://www.pdxcriminallawyers.com/articles-by-castleberry-elison/oregons-stand-your-ground-statute/

 

[Tosh5457]

Please, why don't you focus on all the other murder processes going on? Or else just admit that you think the US justice system is racist, because this is what this trial was all about. When people get outraged from a black guy killing a white guy, I'll start paying attention, because people act like racism only exists one-way.

 

[WannabeNewton]

The riots in LA and elsewhere are just ridiculous. People really need to get a mind of their own and not blindly follow what the media tells them; it isn't exactly a revelation that news outlets nowadays are a far cry from Walter Kronkite's CBS. Sheeple, sheeple everywhere.

 

[leroyjenkens]

The riots in LA and elsewhere are just ridiculous. People really need to get a mind of their own and not blindly follow what the media tells them; it isn't exactly a revelation that news outlets nowadays are a far cry from Walter Kronkite's CBS. Sheeple, sheeple everywhere.

Those are people with no responsibilities. They need something to do.

 

[WannabeNewton]

You know that once the NAACP gets involved, things are going to get needlessly messy.

 

[Travis_King]

I was browsing reddit today and a user by the handle "themanbat" posted an interesting response to the trial results:

In spite of all the trial coverage and media rehashing of this case, it's amazing how few people seem to realize what the evidence is that surprisingly clearly shows happened that night. Zimmerman wasn't just not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. He was obviously innocent of any criminal act, and frankly in my opinion on completely morally sound ground.
The facts:
--Zimmerman claimed to be trying to follow from a safe distance just so police would have a chance to question Martin. There had been break ins and what George did really isn't any different than what other neighborhood watches have done in the past. Martin didn't like being followed so he gave Zimmerman the slip, hid in the shadows, waiting for Zimmerman to pass, and then Martin approached Zimmerman from behind, initiated the confrontation and broke Zimmerman's nose. No evidence or testimony has ever contradicted this.

--Other than the single point blank gun shot wound, Martin had no injuries. Zimmerman on the other hand looked beaten all to hell. This was consistent with Zimmerman being on the receiving end of an unexpected one sided beat down.

--When investigating officers lied and told Zimmerman that they had footage of the incident, Zimmerman was relieved, and said something along the lines of, "Thank God! I was hoping someone would have filmed to help prove what happened." This convinced the officer that Zimmerman was telling the truth.

--Trayvon who has been regularly depicted in the media as younger and practically a saint, was actually suspended from school, not for being absent, but for having drugs and possible stolen goods at school. While he no doubt also had his sweet side, his twitter handle was “No_Limit_Nigga” filled with gangsta nonsense, and the only racial slurs ever uttered in the case were said by Trayvon and not Zimmerman. I'm not saying that any of this proves Trayvon was guilty or by any means deserved to die. The only thing that the evidence clearly points to Trayvon being guilty of is initiating the Assault on Zimmerman.

--The officers who investigated the shooting found no probable cause for arrest, because every part of Zimmerman's story was supported by the limited evidence. The chief of police later lost his job because he refused to arrest Zimmerman without more evidence, despite all the political pressure. The normal prosecutor didn't take this case for 'mysterious' reasons, likely because he didn't want to take a losing case and prosecute a man who as so obviously innocent. Normally the prosecutor gets to decide if he wants to pursue a case, but not this time, the activist pressure was too high. Even the ringers they brought into substitute never really presented a good alternate explanation, and admitted in summation that the only two who really knew what happened were Zimmerman and Trayvon. It's obviously way past reasonable doubt when even the prosecutor can't say he knows the guy did it.

--Essentially this open and shut case only went to trial because racist racial activists went off before the facts were in and they even realized that George Zimmerman wasn't even white.
You can argue that getting out of the car wasn't smart, but the evidence shows George Zimmerman did nothing wrong.

THE SOURCES (Since everyone I mention this to immediately asks me for them anyway.)
Point 1. The videotaped walkthrough of the scene of the crime and the recounting of that night that Zimmerman did with the police.

Point 2. Summaries of the autopsy of Martin and medical examination of Zimmerman's injuries.
http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/world/Trayvon+Martin+wound+backs+shooter+story+pathologist+says/8638161/story.html
http://www.hlntv.com/article/2013/06/10/george-zimmerman-murder-trayvon-martin-autopsy
Point 3. The investigating officer testifying on the "It looks like he recorded the whole thing," bluff. Skip to 1:16:00 to cut to the chase.

Point 4. Links on Martin's Checkered past.
Caught with Weed Pipe and Marijuana Bag at school - http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/Trayvon-Martin-Suspended-From-School-Three-Times-Report-144403305.html
Caught with suspected stolen property and burglarly tools at school - http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/26/2714778/thousands-expected-at-trayvon.html
Thug life Twitter Feed: http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/26/the-daily-caller-obtains-trayvon-martins-tweets/
Martin's Racial Slurs: http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/06/saturday-night-card-game-would-zimmerman-case-have-been-filed-if-creepy-***-cracker-comment-known/
Point 5. Video of the interview with the Police chief who was fired for refusing to arrest Zimmerman for lack of evidence.
TLDR - Everyone has an opinion on this case, but surprisingly few have taken the time to learn the facts. There is no evidence that George Zimmerman did anything wrong.

Now, I've not gone through and verified all this information, and the guy obviously hasn't fully divorced his response from opinion and a bit of speculation, but the links are legitimate and I thought it offered a better perspective on the issue than that which most media outlets have provided. (I'm also not entirely sure I agree with the conclusion about him not having done anything wrong...given that someone is dead and I haven't looked into it very deeply) I didn't follow this issue at all, so any information I had taken in was from snippets here and there, I think I watched a couple minute summary once recently. As far as I knew, some gun-happy rent-a-cop gunned down an unarmed kid (all the news photo's I saw in passing showed Treyvon as a boy, not a teen).

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

The riots in LA and elsewhere are just ridiculous. People really need to get a mind of their own and not blindly follow what the media tells them; it isn't exactly a revelation that news outlets nowadays are a far cry from Walter Kronkite's CBS. Sheeple, sheeple everywhere.

The media almost instigated the riots themselves. They were expecting them to occur, claiming that there might be upheaval in response to the verdict.

And Kronkite, while a great newsman, wasn't the sweetest or most innocent guy in the world