Is Canada a Safer Alternative After Zimmerman Verdict?

[Evo]

I have no reason to smear Martin.

I didn't say you were smearing him, it was part of a smear campaign against him.

At first I believed as you do still, that Zimmerman hunted him down. I assumed redneck vs black kid race killing.

Did you red the transcripts of the calls Zimmerman made? He was chasing after martin.

And I don't buy that proceeding to pommel the neighborhood watch guy is proper response to an inquiry

Did you read what I posted? Zimmerman wasn't beaten, he was apparently punched once. He didn't even require stitches, I don't even know if he required a bandaid.

You know that in the transcripts Zimmerman said Martin had run away and he didn't know where he was, but Zimmerman continued to look for him after police told him no?

 

[Evo]

George Zimmerman should not have approached Trayvon Martin, but Trayvon Martin similarly should not have, as the supplied evidence is inclined to show, attacked Mr. Zimmerman, and pinned him to the ground. In the end, Martin ends up dead, and there isn't enough evidence to convince the jury that Zimmerman is guilty of murder of the 2nd degree.

There are no witnesses to this, it's a story from Zimmerman. On the call to the police Zimmerman says that Martin ran away. It was Zimmerman that hunted him down.

EDIT:

" ... pinned him to the ground" is a bit of an embellishment. But as shown by the forensic evidence, Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman at some point, explaining the upwards trajectory of the gunshot.

That's one scenario, it's not proven. There is evidence that show this isn't true. I already posted them, eyewitnesses that say Zimmerman was on top and that if Zimmerman is telling the truth (which he's been found not to in several instances) he could not have pulled out his gun with Martin straddling him as he claims.

 

[lurflurf]

Zimmerman was not the volunteer "Neighborhood Watch" guy. That was an excuse. He was playing policeman, Batman, or somethingman. Zimmerman was not performing neighborhood watch nor following neighborhood watch protocol. If some obviously mentally ill person chases you, asks you questions, and pulls a gun it is justified to beat them senseless. Unfortunately Martin did not do that, if he had he might be alive today.

 

[Curious3141]

Don't try to defend yourself in Florida, the person who attacked you can legally kill you.

Not quite. The way I understand things work (or don't) in Florida, you can defend yourself, but only using lethal force, in the name of "standing your ground".

So arm yourself at all times. If there's a need to defend yourself, announce loudly that you're standing your ground, and shoot to kill. That way there's no one to refute your story, you get off scot free after a lengthy trial that propels you to minor-celeb status and you probably get to clean up on the talk show circuit afterward.

 

[D H]

That's one scenario, it's not proven.

That's the only plausible scenario presented at the trial, Evo. Even most of the prosecutors' witnesses ended up corroborating Zimmerman's account.

There is evidence that show this isn't true.

There is very weak evidence that shows this isn't true. Weak evidence does not make for "beyond a reasonable doubt". The prosecutors tried to make the case that Zimmerman was on top, but this line of argument could not stand up to cross examination.

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

 

[jim hardy]

You know that in the transcripts Zimmerman said Martin had run away and he didn't know where he was, but Zimmerman continued to look for him after police told him no?

I know that Zimmerman said
he had lost him and was walking back to his truck, possibly in response to police request I don't know. Then Trayvon appeared from behind wherever he'd hid.
Zimmerman claimed Trayvon confronted him and said to him "You got a problem ?"
Apparently Zimmerman is not a Clint Eastwood 'take charge' guy because (he said) he responded "No", which sounds to me sort of obsequious.
To which Trayvon responded "Now you do", punched him & got him down on the sidewalk and was slamming his head into the sidewalk.

ABC news that night showed the now famous news clip of Zimmerman being taken out of the police car .
I saw briefly a wound to the back of his head which ABC News quickly covered with their logo. The attending officer stopped mid stride to look at the wound but it was hidden from TV viewers by the ABC logo. A few weeks later ABC re-ran it without the logo and a wound is clearly visible through Zimmerman's hair.

I don't even know if he required a bandaid.

If I recall he refused treatment. I might've too were my ego badly bruised by a recent thrashing.

Did you red the transcripts of the calls Zimmerman made? He was chasing after martin.

Well Z was the neighborhood watch guy and somebody was running away. It would not be unnatural to want to know where he was. Do I recall correctly dispatcher also said they had somebody on the way? Would you as the semi-responsible party want to be empty handed when they arrived?

I'm not going to condemn or paean him for chasing Martin - it's just I can see why a reasonable person might have done so in the circumstance.

We all wish it hadn't happened.
"Don't take your guns to town, boy, leave your guns at home." j cash

 

[leroyjenkens]

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

I meant legally. Of course you're physically able to kill them. You can kill anybody at any time, whether legal or not.
But if you're going to be guilty of manslaughter, then you can't legally kill them. So according to you, in order for that person to act within the law, they must allow themselves to be beaten to death.

 

[WannabeNewton]

So according to you, in order for that person to act within the law, they must allow themselves to be beaten to death.

Since when is killing a 17 year old kid the only way to get him to stop beating you, especially when you have the butt end of your gun to beat him unconscious with like lurflurf said? I agree with anti that unequivocal evidence for the case was not of luxury here and that Zimmerman's team made compelling arguments but your argument makes no sense.

 

[micromass]

I meant legally. Of course you're physically able to kill them. You can kill anybody at any time, whether legal or not.
But if you're going to be guilty of manslaughter, then you can't legally kill them. So according to you, in order for that person to act within the law, they must allow themselves to be beaten to death.

Assume the following events (I did not say it happened like this, this is just an example)
- A attacks B
- B defends himself and stars beating up A
- A is losing the fight and is risking to be beaten to death, he draws a gun and shoots

I think that in this case, A should be guilty of manslaughter since he started the fight.

So the big question for me is whether Zimmerman started the fight or not.

 

[DavidSnider]

Assume the following events (I did not say it happened like this, this is just an example)
- A attacks B
- B defends himself and stars beating up A
- A is losing the fight and is risking to be beaten to death, he draws a gun and shoots

I think that in this case, A should be guilty of manslaughter since he started the fight.

So the big question for me is whether Zimmerman started the fight or not.

Settling disputes of this nature is why we have courts. The jury already decided.

 

[leroyjenkens]

Since when is killing a 17 year old kid the only way to get him to stop beating you, especially when you have the butt end of your gun to beat him unconscious with like lurflurf said? I agree with anti that unequivocal evidence for the case was not of luxury here and that Zimmerman's team made compelling arguments but your argument makes no sense.

My argument makes no sense because you're assuming he could have used the butt end of his gun to beat him unconscious? I don't know how that takes all the sense away from my argument, but ok.
It's easy to say what he could have done, but you don't know if that was even possible from the position they were in, or if Zimmerman was coherent while being beaten to not only accurately hit the boy with it, but have the presence of mind to use the gun for a purpose it's not intended for.
You made a huge assumption and said my argument makes zero sense because it doesn't take into account your assumptions. I don't understand that.

Assume the following events (I did not say it happened like this, this is just an example)
- A attacks B
- B defends himself and stars beating up A
- A is losing the fight and is risking to be beaten to death, he draws a gun and shoots

I think that in this case, A should be guilty of manslaughter since he started the fight.

So the big question for me is whether Zimmerman started the fight or not.

I think for A to be guilty of manslaughter, the way the fight starts makes all the difference.
There's a huge difference between A simply confronting B, and us calling that "starting the fight", and A physically attacking B.

 

[micromass]

Settling disputes of this nature is why we have courts. The jury already decided.

And nothing prevents us to discuss the verdict and whether it's just or not.

 

[DavidSnider]

I guess I don't understand how anybody could find justice was not served in this case.

It went to trial. Zimmerman wasn't given any sort of special treatment like in the OJ case. If anything it was the opposite. The jury weighed the evidence and found him not guilty.

Isn't this how the justice system is supposed to work?

 

[D H]

Since when is killing a 17 year old kid the only way to get him to stop beating you, especially when you have the butt end of your gun to beat him unconscious with like lurflurf said?

That's an irrelevant argument. There's nothing in the Florida law on justifiable use of deadly force that says that deadly force can only be used as a last resort.

That Zimmerman did kill Martin was not a contested issue. The key issue at hand in the trial was whether or not this killing was justifiable. The homicide was justifiable if Zimmerman's description of the events that transpired that night was true. The state therefore had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman's description was false. More than half of the state's own witnesses ended up corroborating what Zimmerman claimed happened. That does not meet the standard of unreasonable doubt.

 

[verty]

The homicide was justifiable if Zimmerman's description of the events that transpired that night was true. The state therefore had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman's description was false.

Why? Why did they have to do this? Where is this written? I'm wondering where this comes from. Trayvon Martin being dead, he was not around to refute anything Zimmerman had to say. Zimmerman could say really whatever he liked, and only the evidence could speak against him. Is this the meaning of reasonable doubt, that doubt in the face of evidence to the contrary is unreasonable?

But here's the thing. If only the evidence can speak against Zimmerman's description, evidence against must be weighed much more highly than evidence for. For obvious reasons, if the description is true, the evidence should all support it, nothing should be out of place. If even one thing is out of place, there is reason to doubt the story.

There is also a moral dimension to this. If what Evo said is true, that Trayvon Martin ran away and was pursued, he might well have been in a defensive mood. Here is a guy chasing him, perhaps he wants to rob him. He must defend himself. Zimmerman gets in his face, he punches him. This is a normal reaction, a warning if you like, stop hassling me, more of this will follow if you continue. Martin could even have leaned over him, to say "stop chasing me". From a moral standpoint, none of this is strange or unexpected. This is a description of events that does not morally justify the shooting. It's like tit for tat, he got in my face, chasing me, not leaving me alone, I get in his face, let him know that I don't like it.

So I go back to this issue of reasonable doubt. DH says that if Zimmerman's story is correct, the killing was justified. Does he mean morally justified? If so, even he believes that the jury's task is a moral one. Because what is moral and legal are not always in agreement. I think the jury is there to sort out the disagreement between these two spheres. That is, the jury of one's peers is the moral authority against the legal authority - the court. What is moral should come into it.

If Trayvon Martin did only what one might expect him to do and it got him killed, something is seriously wrong. The prosecution's argument was (I think) that this makes it second-degree murder. Here was a guy that got killed and shouldn't have been, goes the argument. Zimmerman killed him and the only argument against this is his assertion that he was having his head slammed into the pavement. Martin was on top of him doing this and he defended himself. I have reasonable doubt that this even happened.

 

[DavidSnider]

But here's the thing. If only the evidence can speak against Zimmerman's description, evidence against must be weighed much more highly than evidence for. For obvious reasons, if the description is true, the evidence should all support it, nothing should be out of place. If even one thing is out of place, there is reason to doubt the story.

This is not how the US legal system works. The prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty. What you are suggesting is that the defense has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he is innocent.

There is a reason you plead "not guilty" rather than "innocent". The law doesn't require you to prove that you are innocent.

 

[nsaspook]

I guess I don't understand how anybody could find justice was not served in this case.

It went to trial. Zimmerman wasn't given any sort of special treatment like in the OJ case. If anything it was the opposite. The jury weighed the evidence and found him not guilty.

Isn't this how the justice system is supposed to work?

Yes, when you overcharge a person due to political pressure, try to twist the facts into a emotional fantasy, put on prime witnesses that mainly help the defense you should lose the case.

 

[mheslep]

Zimmerman acted unlawfully, the neighborhood watch (see the video in my link) does not allow the watch person to follow or confront anyone. They are supposed to call police and stay away. Not only did he violate the watch rules, he went against the police when they told him to stop following Martin and let them handle it.

Zimmerman may have been unwise (at least), but none of the above is unlawful. The Watch is not the law, and not even the 911 operator's "we don't need you to do that" is a legal order. The first illegal act here occurred when one physically assaulted the other, before the gun was produced.

 

[jim hardy]

Why? Why did they have to do this? Where is this written? I'm wondering where this comes from.

Supreme court.

Proof, Burden of Proof, and Presumptions.—The due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments “[protect] the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged.”83

http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt14efrag7_user.html

 

[D H]

Why? Why did they have to do this? Where is this written? I'm wondering where this comes from.

In a sense, it goes all the way back to the Magna Carta. The standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" applies throughout much of Great Britain and its former colonies. "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

In the US, we have a concept of due process, granted by the fifth and fourteenth amendments. The Supreme Court has interpreted that as meaning a trial by jury with the prosecution having to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. In re Winship essentially said that that the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard applies to *all* criminal proceedings. The prosecution *never* gets the benefit of the doubt in any criminal proceeding.

DH says that if Zimmerman's story is correct, the killing was justified. Does he mean morally justified?

I meant legally justified.

There are plenty of acts that are perfectly legal that are at best questionable from a moral perspective. Whether what Zimmerman did was moral was not a question put to the jury. They had to decide whether there was any reasonable doubt that it might have been legally justified.

Zimmerman killed him

That part was not contested.

and the only argument against this is his assertion that he was having his head slammed into the pavement. Martin was on top of him doing this and he defended himself. I have reasonable doubt that this even happened.

You are applying the standard of reasonable doubt the wrong way. The correct way to apply this standard is to ask yourself whether the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the killing could not possibly have happened the way Zimmerman claimed events unfolded. The prosecution did not do this. Most of the prosecution's own witnesses ended up corroborating Zimmerman's story. The prosecution did most of the work for the defense.

 

[member 392791]

And Zimmerman weighed more and had a loaded gun. According to your link Did you have some kind of point?

I was addressing the other poster that I quoted about his comment regarding Martin being some small frail child. I have nothing to say right now about the verdict.

 

[EricVT]

But Jim, the fact is that Martin wasn't doing anything wrong, and Zimmerman took the law into his own hands, disobeying both the neighborhood watch rules and direct orders from the police to stop following Martin. It wouldn't matter if Martin had murdered someone previously, he wasn't breaking any laws at the time according to Zimmerman himself. The stuff you posted is a smear campaign that has nothing to do with Martin's actions on the night he was murdered.

You are saying that it was a police officer giving a direct order for Zimmerman to stop following Martin. Can you provide your source for this?

 

[Evo]

You are saying that it was a police officer giving a direct order for Zimmerman to stop following Martin. Can you provide your source for this?

The call to police dispatch Zimmerman made, [STRIKE]I assumed[/STRIKE] it was the police, it wasn't 911. Do you have proof it was not the police number that he'd call for a non-emergency call? The news said it was to a non-emergency number. Please post your source if you disagree.

George Zimmerman calls police 8-3-2011
1:11PM EDT, July 12, 2012 – (01:46

Audio of phone call placed by George Zimmerman to Sanford Police on 8-3-2011 describing a suspicious subject he thought to be a burglary suspect.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/videogallery/71028351/#pl-71029300

It has a list of his calls to the police.

George Zimmerman call to Sanford Police on the night he shot Trayvon Martin (explicit language)

http://www.wftv.com/videos/news/raw-911-call-zimmerman-made-to-sanford-police/vGZq9/

Listen to the call being answered "Stanford Police Department", it's not 911 because it's not an emergency.

 

[micromass]

The call to police dispatch Zimmerman made, I assumed it was the police, it wasn't 911. Do you have proof it was not the police number that he'd call for a non-emergency call? The news said it was to a non-emergency number. Please post your source if you disagree.

You made the claim that it was a police number. He was just asking a question. So I feel you should be providing the source...

 

[D H]

The call to police dispatch Zimmerman made, I assumed it was the police, it wasn't 911.

That was a police dispatcher rather than a police officer, Evo, and they do not give orders. They are specifically trained to give suggestions rather than commands or orders.

 

[Evo]

That was a police dispatcher rather than a police officer, Evo, and they do not give orders. They are specifically trained to give suggestions rather than commands or orders.

He was told not to follow Trayvon. It's also against the Neighborhood Watch Rules.

We don't know everything that happened in the 13 minutes that passed between the time Zimmerman, 28, called police and a paramedic pronounced 17-year-old Trayvon Martin dead.

But this much isn't in dispute: Zimmerman was armed. He was alone. And while waiting for police, he somehow got into a fight with the person he thought suspicious.

All three of those actions are strongly discouraged by the National Sheriffs' Association, which oversees about 20,000 Neighborhood Watch programs.

There are practical reasons for those rules.

And this absolutely heart-wrenching one: A family of a teenager is now coping with a death that probably could have been avoided.

"There is no reason in the world to carry a gun for Neighborhood Watch," said Chris Tutko, a retired police chief who now directs Neighborhood Watch for the sheriffs' association. "It gets people more into trouble than out of it."

A manual published by the association for its "USAonWatch" program makes that very clear.

"It should be emphasized to members that they do not possesses police powers and they shall not carry weapons or pursue vehicles," the manual states. "Members should never confront suspicious persons who could be armed and dangerous."

Zimmerman is reportedly the self-appointed leader for the group at his complex of town homes. A sign at the gated entrance warns it is surveilled by Neighborhood Watch, and says, "We report all suspicious persons and activities to the Sanford Police Department."

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-14/news/os-trayvon-martin-beth-kassab-031512-20120314_1_orlando-police-block-captains-zimmerman

 

[micromass]

He was told not follow Trayvon. It's also against the Neighborhood Watch Rules.

Indeed. But none these things matter legally.

 

[Evo]

Indeed. But none these things matter legally.

Like I said yesterday

Zimmerman got off because of reasonable doubt, it's legal. You may think Zimmerman was right in disobeying his neighborhood watch and the police and causing an unnecessary altercation that ended with the killing of Martin. That's fine, if that's how you feel.

 

[encorp]

The only fact no one seems to really dispute is that Zimmerman STALKED Martin. Stalked him! The entire situation was created by Zimmermans actions.

I love how in this society we live in, it's okay for people to lock themselves up in a gated community, and kill people who are not from them. Is this the middle ages?

It's like "AHHH Kill that man for being from the other side of the fence!"

Society shouldn't be so divisive that it even allowed for this situation to happen.

 

[Office_Shredder]

The only fact no one seems to really dispute is that Zimmerman STALKED Martin. Stalked him! The entire situation was created by Zimmermans actions.

Actually the only fact nobody disputes is that Zimmerman shot Martin.

As far as the stalking

Picture of a map

Zimmerman traveled maybe 300 feet during the whole encounter. Did he chase Martin? Yeah he probably did. But did he stalk him? No, not really. The fight happened across the street from Zimmerman's truck

EDIT TO ADD: I was doing some random web searching and found this
http://www.tampabay.com/news/public...s-some-shocking-outcomes-depending-on/1233133

which describes how the law is being abused in ways that are far more obvious than the Zimmerman case might be