Been reading over the replies, quite a few have surprised me.
I had more but frankly was meant to wake up in an hour's time.
Truer words haven't not never been never not said until now.
You write all that and still talk straight past or ignore several of the central arguments.
1) The burden of proof. You simply get this point wrong.
You quoted yourself;
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.
The problem many people have with this is that it is a reversal of the usual self-defence defence.
Self-defence is an affirmative defence under most legal systems. That is to say, if you are claiming self-defence the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate to a jury, beyond reasonable doubt, that you were acting in justified self-defence. It is on you (or the defence council) to meet that burden.
...
The prosecution failed to meet this raised bar. Flip the burden of proof the other way and it could have easily been a conviction.
There is a very specific reason as to why the burden of proof was on the prosecution.
George Zimmerman had pleaded "not guilty." This means that he was to be assumed innocent by the jury until proven otherwise by the state. If the burden of proof had been flipped, George Zimmerman would have been entering court as an already assumed murderer even in spite of his plea. In this case, I think it would have only served to lengthen the cost it would have had on the defence, but the outcome would have been the same... Ignoring the loophole in that the judge would have been able to give a sentence the moment the trial began. But I would never support, nor can I ever say such a system for other people, where they are assumed guilty and have to prove their innocence, would not result in the innocent suffering injustice.
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.
What you suggest not only actively subverts the entire US court, the US constitution, it is also in direct violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [article 11]:
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
Zimmerman was enacting his rights as a human being to hold a fair public trial. I am absolutely right in this.
Under the Florida laws and in this trial, as you quoted, it was on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Zimmerman didn't act in justified self defence. Note that justification, under Stand Your Ground laws and quoted in the jury instructions and your own post, involve a reasonable fear of bodily harm. That is, the prosecution would have had to prove that either Zimmerman didn't fear harm at Martin's hands or that such a fear wasn't 'reasonable'. Specifically;
The danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, George Zimmerman must have actually believed that the danger was real.
You flat out deny this elsewhere in your post.
I assume you are referring to this bit?
"In addition, I would like to use this case to also point out that the insinuation that the prosecution had to prove that George wasn't fearing for his life, that they had to prove his feelings were not what George himself reported them to be for George to get sentenced, is downright wrong. In Alexander's case, even if she genuinely believed her life was in danger, unless there was some act taken at that time to instill that fear, she wouldn't be able to to just on some random Monday morning grab a gun and shoot Gray because Gray had done abusive things."
Because that was not a flat out denial of the jury's instructions, it was a flat out denial that the prosecution's entire case was resting on proving that George Zimmerman was NOT fearing for his life, despite the judge and the prosecution in Alexander's case both concluding that fear of death is but one factor - fear of death alone is not enough to justify killing another human being unlawfully.
2) The real reason the case was such a big deal was the reluctance of the police to investigate or prosecute. This was again related to a point of law in Florida.
I've been reading the headlines and watching the reaction at arm's length, when people have been calling for lynchings it's never been targeted at police officers.
Under the Stand Your Ground laws, defendants who claim self defence can be granted immunity from civil and criminal prosecution. Any attempts at prosecution open the state up to lawsuits.
This is because everyone has the right to a fair trial. You do not become immune to prosecution, it means you become immune to honour killings and the unfair allocation of punishment by the judicial system. A trial protects people' rights while ensuring retribution for crimes, a trial is not an immunity clause for criminals to escape justice. The accused can be brought to trial if evidence for a probable cause of unlawful activity arises.
This is utterly absurd on the face of it. It erects a huge barrier to even attempting to prosecute murders where there is the least claim to self defence by not just making convictions hard but also by imposing large financial costs (beyond prosecution costs) to the arresting and prosecuting bodies.
If you plead guilty and the factual evidence disproves your claim, you face an increased sentence for imposing such a large cost. It creates a huge barrier between the innocent, of those whose innocence is backed by facts, from being sentenced to prison, fines or worse, while similarly discouraging the guilty from wasting court time.
At the time of the shooting Zimmerman's claim of self defence meant there was absolutely no immediate investigation of him, let alone arrest or prosecution. The initial facts combined with the the 911 call tapes were more than enough for a serious investigation, if not immediate charges, in most places. But under Florida law the state couldn't afford the risk.
Ah, sadly my case is not done then. Detective Serino was the one who said that there was too little evidence present to press charges on Zimmerman and did testify in court as to why. Unfortunately, guess which testimony I missed? I'll get back to you once I've watched it.
But going back to the start of the point, the lack of action against Zimmerman combined with the seemingly callous treatment of Martin and his family by the police spurred anger at both the particular case and the laws that made this happen. It was that anger that was focused to force the police to take action, in the desperate hope that the laws wouldn't be enforced as broadly as they were written.
3) You completely miss the race angle. It's to do with that whole 'reasonable fear' part of the justification above.
Jelani Cobb put this best;In a 2012 study, some fifty-six per cent of Americans were found to hold what the Associated Press terms implicit “anti-black sentiments,” an increase of seven percentage points in four years. Fifty-one per cent of respondents in the same study “express[ed] explicit anti-black attitudes.” At the same time, fifty-six per cent of the public believes that the rate of crimes committed with guns has gone up over the past twenty years, when in fact the firearm homicide rate dropped by forty-nine per cent from 1993 to 2010, and the rate of non-fatal violent crimes that involved a gun fell by seventy-two per cent. Thus the assumption among his defenders that Zimmerman was, at worst, wrong for all the right reasons.
We live in an era in which the protocol for addressing even the most severely bigoted behavior very often includes a conditional apology to the offender—a declaration that he has made a terrible error, but is, of course, in no way racist—and, eventually, an outpouring of support for the fallible transgressor, victim of the media and the “race-hustlers.” We grade racism on the severest of curves, and virtually no one qualifies. This apparent contradiction—the prevalence of racist attitudes, the disavowal of actual racism—is key to understanding the way Zimmerman has been received. His actions are understandable, even reasonable, because it doesn’t take a racist to believe black males equal danger. To bridge the gap between those assumptions and the objective fact of Martin as an unarmed teen on a snack run, it’s been necessary for Zimmerman’s defenders—legal and otherwise—to assassinate a dead teen-ager’s character, to turn him from a slight seventeen-year-old into a rapper in his thirties with facial tattoos. Traces of weed, a few vile tweets, and a suspension from school don’t usually get you menace-to-society status, but for some Zimmerman diehards, it’s close enough to round up.
Note that he goes on to address the issue of Zimmerman's ethnicity, but that's largely irrelevant to the racist angle of some of his defenders. For many people viewing all black males as potential threats isn't racist, it's just good sense. Having to admit that Zimmerman's profiling of Martin was racist and results his death would be to admit that their own views are racist and have the potential to get people killed.
In an unnamed study that gave no allusions as to who was studied on, how many were studied on, where they were sampled from, how they were studied on and so forth in addition to how they decided what was racist or how they came to the conclusion that the Chinese were considered neutral by Americans.
I don't see anyone apologizing to Zimmerman [admittedly, NBC apologized for editing the 911 call to make him sound racist... Off air] and I only see an abundance of people calling him a rather high number of unflattering things, amongst them the new playground insult 'racist.' It just seems like Jelani Cobb is living in the same fantasy dystopia as the rest of his colleagues.
...
...
We're doing that thing again where we're giving opinions but only one of us is using someone else's opinion to back up their opinion.
4) Combine the above points, with such crimes being near impossible to prosecute and even nearer impossible to convict on, the treatment of police of a black family who had just lost a son, and the strong racial profiling that is used to justify the killing of a black youth and you have a population of black Americans who just had it confirmed to them that they can be legally killed, and that people are willing and likely to do so.
And? You've had the most powerful country on this planet uttering white like an insult, berating hispanics, having witnesses shouting racial slurs
in court excused, people making jokes about the hispanic witnesses telling them to go back to mowing their lawn etc. all by just about every news station 24/7.
It's almost like you don't give a fuck about anyone else's races and you're just more concerned with sticking your head in the sand the moment it sounds like someone black actually did something wrong. The only thing that was confirmed to them is that if you attack someone, they can legally fight back.
In regards to the willing part: STATISTICS
They're a bit like facts, but they're a lot easier to inject OPINIONS into.
But for whatever race you are, chances are if you're murdered you were murdered at the hands of the same race you were a part of.Seriously, try understanding the perspective of the black communities. There have been more than enough articles written and shows produced. So far very little attention around here has been paid to that aspect of the case, which is likely to have far wider cultural influence than any of the legal aspect.
5) Minor point, but white Hispanics are a thing. It's a little technical, but white is a race and Hispanic is an ethnicity.
I had more but frankly was meant to wake up in an hour's time.
ENHANCE
Seriously, try understanding the perspective of the black communities. There have been more than enough articles written and shows produced. So far very little attention around here has been paid to that aspect of the case, which is likely to have far wider cultural influence than any of the legal aspect.
ENHANCE AGAIN
Seriously, try understanding the perspective of the black communities.
So far very little attention around here has been paid to that aspect of the case
which is likely to have far wider cultural influence than any of the legal aspect.
So far very little attention around here has been paid to that aspect of the case
There have been more than enough articles written and shows produced.
FUCK
No? Not funny? Ah well, what I'm trying to get across is that race had no relevance in the case, even Jeantel's slurs didn't have an impact on the trial. Paying attention to it only comes at the detriment of actual racial relations between the white, black and hispanic groups of America. There have been more than enough articles and shows written where there should have been none, this whole farce has been one trainwreck joke of people digging deeper holes to bury themselves in. This should never have been brought up as a matter of race, people shouldn't be immediately judging people just because of their race, people shouldn't be so willing to accept damning judgements because of race, ignore evidence because of race, continue to hold opinions contrary to the reality because of race, stop bringing up race where it has no business. The people who did so clearly gave zero fucks about whether or not the outcome of this trial would solidify harmony between the races of America, they just wanted to see judicial blood. The other half wanted to see actual blood. Both were entertained as serious possible outcomes because of the people who kept bringing up race.
In the grand scheme of things, the content of the case does not matter. It's a sad case that could have swung either way. However, why it does matter is outrage. The media has been hyping it up waaay too much, just like mass shootings. There will be riots. It's L.A riots V2.0.
L.A. riots V2? I'm not sure. Mind you, the riots already happened and the only time I heard about them was when one guy got shot and the internet outrage when the rioters tried burning down a McDonalds flag. I'd say the content is the only thing that matters and that the whole issue has come about from people ignoring the content. The only thing that could have caused the trial to swing the other way I suppose is if O'Mara or West did not volunteer, as Zimmerman had no way of paying for a lawyer and I'm not sure how many people could have exposed the prosecution's misconduct as they did, even in the face of a hostile judge.
Having to admit that Zimmerman's profiling of Martin was racist and results his death would be to admit that their own views are racist and have the potential to get people killed.
And there are just so many hurdles of logic leaped that it boggles the mind. Because we know Zimmerman did not profile Martin, we know he wasn't racist and at what point did you seriously believe that a racist would care if a minority killed a minority from a belief they subscribe to that gets minorities killed and could just as well get more of them imprisoned as well? If anything, this is a white supremacist's heaven, this is the closest they'll ever get to seeing a race war between two ethnic groups and neither are white, in this decade.
"Oh hey there Mr. White Racist, you look glum today. Why is that?"
"It's terrible! I've just realized that my logical and well reasoned position that my race is superior - is actually invalid and makes those nasty minorities die AND go to jail, OH THE HORROR! I AM FORCED TO RECONCILE MY WAYS AND ADMIT MY VIEWS ARE NOT ACTUALLY REASONABLE."
"Why don't you just support the minority? That way by supporting the minority, you don't ever have to worry about your views on minorities, so you can continue hating minorities! IT'S THE ONLY WAY. LISTEN TO REASON!"
I actually want to write a sitcom about this and put it in a time capsule or something, "the little politically correct racist engine that could."
This sort of case is the inadvertent outcome of racist paranoia. Having to justify it as acceptable and reasonable is the only option for such paranoid racists, even if they might not come to Zimmerman's defence as a racial brother.
And here is where I think it all falls down. Racists of the dangerous caliber are dead or in prison [in prison it's another story] and at this point you're jumping at straws in a racism filled paranoia, justifying going far off the moral high ground until you slip and can't climb back up by continually bringing up race where it just doesn't fit. You're talking about Hispanic people and white people as if they are the Mexican Mafia and the Aryan Brotherhood.
"Why bring up race?"
"Because if we don't, racist paranoia will win."
I tried my best to research well into both sides' arguments, tried to bring up the facts brought and omitted in the trial, tried to correct misconceptions about the trial and still I see people trying to refute facts with their personal opinions. Ah, the agony.
Such a nice word, agony. It rarely sees use these days.
I will not give my own conclusion and defend it, or attack anyone elses, though it's obvious where I would stand in the matter. This is because I'm very emotionally attached to this case, and when I debate about it online, my emotions override my logic and my arguments start breaking down.
How can you emotionally invest yourself in this trial knowing it will jeopardize your logical reasoning, and what kind of activism have you conducted that eased the antagonistic fallout of the verdict between the three largest racial groups of America?
Flordia's law specifically allows you to use force against someone if you "feel threatened", and you never have a duty to retreat. Flordia's SYG law is probably the most vague of all the
self-defense laws.
Flordia's SYG law is a serious legal failing, because the "threatened" clause is purely subjective in regards to the defendant and cannot be proven or disproven by any evidence, as well as probably involving the attacking party being too dead to give testimony. As such, only the word of the defendant may be available. You can probably imagine how this might end up being abused.
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force.
The key here is that "a person is justified in the use of force," EXCEPT DEADLY FORCE for which different rules apply:
However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013. [that statute is another list which describes a whole set of circumstances]
Which translated in the Jury's guide as:
"A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself. In deciding whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, George Zimmerman must have actually believed that the danger was real. If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in anyplace where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. In considering the issue of self-defense, you may take into account the relative physical abilities and capacities of George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin. If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find George Zimmerman not guilty."
And this is not as vague as you say, or Alexander would have been covered under the law and she would have walked free. You can see how it can be abused, people might try to use it to justify killing someone. And you will also see that these people are mistaken if they believe it only takes a belief of peril and not a reasonable belief of peril to justify criminal acts. Lethal force is excusable only within dwellings, vehicles, homes AND [the part that is relevant] preventing crimes or forcible felonies that are IMMINENT - about to happen.
And that also ties in with one of the other parts that are relevant to what constitutes justification, in that a fear is not justification - a reasonable fear is. A demonstrable reason for this fear must be provided, a reason that holds in court.
Although I do think it is important to question whether it is right or not to legally require victims to flee for as soon and long as they are able, I do not think it is an important thing to note in a case where the victim was incapable of escaping in any case.
It was legal for a man to murder a teenager in cold blood. This has showed that there are problems with our criminal codes that we need to fix.
Was there something I missed? When did George ambush Trayvon and shoot him in the back, I don't think we're looking at the same evidence here.
As a Florida resident I couldn't get away from this trial. The local news stations were all 24/7 Zimmerman trial coverage while we occasionally tell you the weather while the court is in recess. All the while the weatherman is commenting on how it will affect the protesters.
I agree with the verdict, while Zimmerman didn't do the smartest thing by pursuing Travon til he was told not to, he didn't break any laws.
I also agree that this should not have been the media frenzy it was, if I turn on the news I want to see what is happening, locally, like why I just heard a fire truck drive by, I don't want to watch the news anchors endlessly debate how important it is that the jury wants an evidence inventory list.
It was stupid that the school system treated crimes like petty school misdemeanors.
It was stupid that Trayvon responded in a disproportionate attempt at intimidation.
It was stupid that George chased Trayvon seriously expecting the suspect to simply listen to him and wait patiently for police to come and arrest him. He corrected himself with good advice, but he still ran off with a naive plan at first.
It was stupid that Trayvon turned back to stroke his ego and assault an innocent man.
It was still stupid when the news made it a national story.
It got stupider still when the news took it to hand to make an angel figure so perfect, not even a perfect person could live up to it.
It got downright malicious when the news took it further and started deliberately misrepresenting and editing evidence to ensure George Whiteman was as evil as can be.
It was a massive build up, a shitfest of media headlines and reporters horribly trying disprove facts with their opinions that everyone was cheering and stacking beans for the upcoming race riots, everyone was pumped to go crazy because someone had been so crass as to commit the crime of being declared not guilty. And then it died. The riots built steam, "FUCK THE POLICE" [and then they all went home when the police showed up]. And it died with a pathetic whimper, and the end result is the lives of so many people are already over and no respect or redemption could even be had for Trayvon. When your "unremarkable penis" is broadcasted as evidence on national news, your face shoopdawhooped all over the place, people use your as a body to wave on a stick for issues imagined by people who never cared about you, you know you've hit an all time low.
Well that needs fixing. Castle Doctrine still has it's place though, considering that if they are anywhere inside your house you need to protect yourself/your property/family.
I do certainly think there will be riots. This has been bubbling up for a long time, and I think this is the 'Main eruption'. If not then I think there will be riots soon. Aggressions and tensions are certainly rising in America.
There won't be riots. Even if Zimmerman was some Neo-Nazi master criminal who had it all planned before he even knew what would transpire that day, there probably wouldn't be riots. That's just down to an inability for the American people to get riled up about anything anymore. What was really taking the brunt of the anger? Social media, then it was forgotten in the following days. Not to mention that it was crippled from inside out from all of the people reporting the rioters making death threats against the judge and the people involved. Or not involved, as they were pretty much making threats to everyone.
Poll
Author
Topic: George Zimmerman verdict and THINGS (Read 16974 times)