Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MonkeyHead]

Oh, I 100% accept the courts decision to aquit him based on the evidence at hand, however emotionally charged a case it may be. I just dont get how he can be innocent of a crime when compared to the not as well publicised case linked earlier. It shows the law as it is being applied to be an ass, as is so very often the case.

[palsch]

And what has been seen in the trial is not only has he not been proven guilty, but he has also been proven innocent beyond a reasonable doubt.

No. Where did you get this idea from?

He was found not guilty. That means that the prosecution couldn't prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. At no time did he prove his innocence nor did he have to. He just had to introduce that reasonable doubt. This is how the justice system works.

You parrot innocent till proven guilty as a universal moral principle - which it isn't - yet show absolutely no understanding of it as a legal principle, which it is.

I can't even deal with the rest of this right now.

[MonkeyHead]

Its at times like this I wish the rest of the world borrowed the "Not Proven" verdict from the Scots.

So, Zimmerman was tried for murder, correct? Was that a mistake? Could or would he have been found guilty of manslaughter or unlawful killing (or thier local equivalent, you crazy yanks with your degrees in murder) if tried for them? Should that have been the aim of the prosecution? Did they let the emotional nature of the case cloud thier judgement?

[Loud Whispers]

Oh, I 100% accept the courts decision to aquit him based on the evidence at hand, however emotionally charged a case it may be. I just dont get how he can be innocent of a crime when compared to the not as well publicised case linked earlier. It shows the law as it is being applied to be an ass, as is so very often the case.

And therein lies the problem of making assumptions based off a news report which listed none of the evidence that led to the conviction.
She had no fear of her husband. Hell, four months after the incident [and after the judge told them both not to be near each other] she violated that order to give her husband a black eye. She didn't fire the shot at the ceiling but at the wall behind Gray. He wasn't coming up to her shouting "BITCH I'LL KILL YOU" he was telling his kids to "get your clothes, we're out of here." At which point she fired into the wall at his head height, and the bullet ricocheted into the ceiling.
Gray is not an angel either. He was a chronic abuser and had done so before, much as she did. Yet this is where the stand your ground laws work: It does not allow you to kill people who are no threat to you. At this time, he was no such threat and yet she did try to kill him.

And what has been seen in the trial is not only has he not been proven guilty, but he has also been proven innocent beyond a reasonable doubt.

No. Where did you get this idea from?

Watching the trial. Pardon the brief reply, but still getting the trial tidbits so it's not just hearsay you're responded to with.

[MonkeyHead]

But still, 20 years for not killing someone (circumstances complicated, clearly) compared to free for actually killing someone (circumstances complicated, clearly) makes the logical part of me shudder.

20 years. Thats more than many cold blooded killings get.

[Loud Whispers]

But still, 20 years for not killing someone (circumstances complicated, clearly) compared to free for actually killing someone (circumstances complicated, clearly) makes the logical part of me shudder.

When you plead not guilty, you are either a free person or your sentence is worsened. The original sentence was 3 years. It's the complicated circumstances that decide what the verdict is.

[Frumple]

So, Zimmerman was tried for murder, correct? Was that a mistake? Could or would he have been found guilty of manslaughter or unlawful killing (or thier local equivalent, you crazy yanks with your degrees in murder) if tried for them? Should that have been the aim of the prosecution? Did they let the emotional nature of the case cloud thier judgement?

Tried on charges of second degree murder or manslaughter, actually. Found not guilty. It... it said so in the article you, yourself, linked.

But still, 20 years for not killing someone (circumstances complicated, clearly) compared to free for actually killing someone (circumstances complicated, clearly) makes the logical part of me shudder.

Mandatory sentencing can be a pretty screwed up thing, yes. That said, the situations are apparently not entirely comparable, and you probably shouldn't be considering the two in relation to one another

[MonkeyHead]

Thanks for the info - I now stand better informed.

667% worse (3 yrs to 20 years).... ouch.

[Leafsnail]

No, Zimmerman's father was white and his mother was Peruvian, that makes him Hispanic.

Yeah, as I said, he's hispanic and white.  The two are not mutually exclusive.

In any case, it's an absolute disgrace that people are willing to ignore the evidence so long as they get to hoist their "white people are racists oppressing the black people" narrative.
He didn't stalk him, he was on the neighbourhood watch after there had been 16 reported burglaries. He followed a suspicious person in his car at a distance, as was his duty in the watch and Trayvon fled. George called dispatch to report a suspicious person and stopped following. Trayvon turned back and initiated the conflict, which George lost very quickly. This is when he shot Trayvon once, Trayvon said "ok you got me," and George fled.

The issue is that, even if you fully believe Zimmerman's story, what he did is completely fucked up.  There was nothing at all to suggestion that Martin was suspicious, he was specifically told not to follow him, and the conflict was ultimately his fault (although it's difficult to say who actually initiated violence when he killed the key witness).  I really don't think it's acceptable to initiate a confrontation and then kill the other person when they get the upper hand and inflict a few minor injuries.

e: The other issue is that Zimmerman's account changed a bunch of times

e2: I think there's a possibility of a civil case being brought against Zimmerman too.

[MonkeyHead]

There is a bitter irony in that Zimmerman may need to use the "stand your ground" law in the future to prevent vigilante justice being carried out.

[misko27]

There is a bitter irony in that Zimmerman may need to use the "stand your ground" law in the future to prevent vigilante justice being carried out.

My mom has made the joke that someone going to shoot him and go "It was self-defense. What? I knew he was a killer, I feared for my life. Hell, I was wearing a hoodie! what if he shot me?"


Anyway, this was always a little in his favor, as it was a incident which no one else clearly witnessed, and he they had to prove somehow that he had been acting aggressive to him.

No, Zimmerman's father was white and his mother was Peruvian, that makes him Hispanic.

Yeah, as I said, he's hispanic and white.  The two are not mutually exclusive.

Often I have been asked on forms "Are you a non-white Hispanic?"

[alway]

they had to prove somehow that he had been acting aggressive to him.

Nope. They had to prove he didn't fear for his life. Which is why I've said before, it was obvious there would be no conviction because of the Stand Your Ground laws. The burden of proof for a conviction in that case is pretty damn near impossible. Everything else is all irrelevant circumstantial mish-mash.

[Leafsnail]

Also, because I don't think I made this point hard enough in my previous posts: Zimmerman's injuries were very minor.  He did not need any kind of medical treatment for them.  The idea that his head was being smashed against the ground at any point is a total lie, as he would have suffered far worse injuries if that were true.

[palsch]

For reference, these are the jury instructions. From those alone you can see how hard a conviction would have been under current law.

[Loud Whispers]

Anything anyone else here thinks, believes, proves or at the very least implies GZ is guilty that hasn't already been said?