Can they try him on the racism charge? Oh that's right, racism is not a crime. Oh that's right, he isn't racist anyway.
Quote from Senori »
I think this verdict is a crock of ****, and a travesty of justice. It institutionalizes a world where people of color have to be constantly obsequious to non-colored people
Hispanics don't count as "people of color"? I guess not?
I notice you didn't use the word "minority" or anything.
Called it. The case didn't have anything to do with racism. It's about where insufficient evidence meets extremely broad self defense laws. I don't really get where Trayvon Martin being black falls into this. There would have been a total ****storm over this case no matter what ethnicity of person got shot given the aggressive behavior of Zimmerman beforehand. Whether or not what was done was justice, it was all done according to the law of the state of Florida.
Whether or not Stand Your Ground laws are good laws is a matter for another thread. The prosecution decided, originally and correctly, not to pursue charges because of the exact reasons this trial put on display.
So you're saying only kill if you can get away with it.
Not at all. I am not advocating killing at all. I am saying that most PEOPLE will act within the framework of the law. Also, in Canada Zimmerman would most likely not have had a gun to shoot anyone with. (This is not to be interpreted as an endorsement of gun control)
Often mistakenly quoted as "It is often cheaper to kill a man than to maim him.", Prosser, in actuality, wrote "The results was that it was more profitable for the D to kill the P than to scratch him, and that the most grievous of all injuries left the bereaved family of the victim, who frequently were destitute, without a remedy."
Loved ones may pursue civil litigation, for which the standard of proof is comparatively lesser than that for criminal prosecution, for wrongful death. Wrongful death can be as dear, if not more so than, punitive damages. Prosser's maxim does not always hold water these days, but thank goodness it has the "often"!
If you're feeling awful and spiteful, you can hope that the Martin's will file a wrongful death suit (on top of the criminal prosecution). The standard of evidence is lower, so they may in fact win this.
The verdict of not guilty seems entirely reasonable, whereas a guilty verdict would have been an actual travesty. Reasonable doubt was introduced into the prosecution's case, and the prosecution's case wasn't that robust anyway.
"Stand your ground" is an utterly absurd law (and, no, there is no inconsistency).
If Zimmerman is not guilty of manslaughter, doesn't that mean Treyvon Martin is guilty of aggravated assault/battery?
Does that mean Zimmerman can now sue his estate for damages?
Careful with conflating assault with battery and vice versa. Also, both assault and battery can lead to civil and criminal liability, but criminal assault and criminal battery and variants thereof cannot lead to civil action and a successful suit for damages.
All in all, this has been interesting to read about.
Isn't "reasonable" the wrong word to use given that he walked free due to what you agree is an "utterly absurd law"? Call it expected or the only possible outcome going by the wording of the law, but saying that it's reasonable seems a bit of a leap.
It was reasonable because the prosecution had no evidence or anything while the defendants had everything going for them. They had Zimmerman to testify, they had evidence, they had competent lawyers.
US law is blind and unbiased and you are innocent until proven guilty.
Difference in charge. The person you linked was charged with aggravated assault with a weapon, not second degree murder. The prosecution had a lot less doubt to overcome (several more witnesses), and a charge more in line with the crime. Now, her sentencing is totally ridiculous, but that's an issue with Florida law, not as far as I can tell with any racism.
Edit: So far it looks like the only riots we're going to see are a few in Oakland
Maybe this story can finally leave the front page, and we can go back to addressing more nationally significant news
The media weren't planning ahead on this one. They wanted this to look like Whites attacking Blacks and being racist and stuff (the idea that whites are bad and non-whites are good is basically our state religion), so they made Zimmerman look as bad as possible, and Martin look as good as possible. However, all that did was make it so that as more information surfaced, Martin could only look worse and Zimmerman could only look better.
I mean, they played the part of the 911 tape where Zimmerman said "he's black," but not the part where the operator said "what race is he?" They played the part of the 911 tape where the operator said "you can quit following him if you want," but not the part where Zimmerman said "okay." They were all like "what was he doing with a gun anyway? see, he was paranoid," but it was later revealed that the police told him he should carry one. They showed Martin's childhood photos, to make it look like Zimmerman attacked a kid. They made a big deal about how Zimmerman was an idiot for thinking he had to use self-defense against an unarmed person, even though the FBI says that unarmed commit 2-3 murders every day. They photoshopped Zimmerman to make him look white.
What did the media THINK was going to happen? Were we supposed to go "oh, the media were lying to make it look like he was guilty. He's probably guilty anyway"?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Standard: [leftovers from booster drafts]
Modern: U M'Olk; B Goodstuff
Isn't "reasonable" the wrong word to use given that he walked free due to what you agree is an "utterly absurd law"? Call it expected or the only possible outcome going by the wording of the law, but saying that it's reasonable seems a bit of a leap.
He was not acquitted because of Stand Your Ground. The defense could not use the law since they would have to contradict Zimmerman's testimony. Stand Your Ground is an extension of self defense and if thing happened as Zimmerman said then he had a claim to basic self defense as justification for his actions. Stand Your Ground is for when the accused could have walked away or defused the situation. If Martin really attacked Zimmerman and was on top of him then Zimmerman could not have disengaged and thus would have a claim to basic self defense.
The reasonable doubt mainly comes from there being no real evidence of who actually started the fight. Zimmerman's actions were very provocative but it is not unreasonable to think that an angry Martin might have thrown the first punch.
Stand Your Ground is a bad law because it gives people the freedom to escalate dangerous situation if they think they are in the right.
A laughable thing to believe and easily disproved by a cursory glance at social structure, the legal system and the distribution of wealth.
True, but maybe I'm being ignorant, but this case doesn't seem to be nearly as race based as it was presented.
It certainly sounded like Zimmerman was the aggressor here, given the initial reports. This is why we have trials though, and as biased against him I am after hearing the initial reports, I can only hope that, given all of the information available, this was the best outcome.
A laughable thing to believe and easily disproved by a cursory glance at social structure, the legal system and the distribution of wealth.
Not thinking like how I described can cause one to get lowered in the social structure, to have additional charges added in court cases, and to lose money. I <3 when people accidentally prove me right.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Standard: [leftovers from booster drafts]
Modern: U M'Olk; B Goodstuff
True, but maybe I'm being ignorant, but this case doesn't seem to be nearly as race based as it was presented.
At it's core (as in the events leading up to Trayvon's death)? No, probably not. But race and attitudes towards it almost certainly influenced to varying degrees the events that followed. The police investigation, the media coverage, the trial. It's those things that became racially-charged and helped make this case stand for more than one boy's death.
It certainly sounded like Zimmerman was the aggressor here, given the initial reports.
I haven't been following the case all that religiously since the week it happened, but from the summaries and bulletpoints I've seen during the trial, there's been little to contradict that. At least insofar as Trayvon not being enough of an aggressor to be a threat needing killing out of self-defense. Which is why it was more surprising to me that Zimmerman was acquitted of manslaughter, but the prosecution in this trial built a flimsy case so I really shouldn't be surprised.
This is why we have trials though, and as biased against him I am after hearing the initial reports, I can only hope that, given all of the information available, this was the best outcome.
It leaves a bad taste in my mouth, mostly for the 'information available' part. The prosecution had little to work with and that this outcome was clear for some time feels like a failing of the justice system (including police investigation) to me.
There wasn't even supposed to be a trial. The state was influenced by political power and the media to push for a trial to prosecute Zimmerman despite the lack of evidence.
I have a gut feeling that the masterminds who were pushing for the civil rights outcry knew the prosecution wouldn't win and Zimmerman being acquitted would exacerbate the whole racism debacle.
That isn't even racism. You have no idea what you're talking about.
It actually is. And your ad hominem attack does nothing to support your argument. It is CLEARLY racism to take a case that is all about reasonable doubt and turn it into a racial issue. Especially a black vs white racial issue when the accused is clearly not white. Before you accuse others of not knowing what they are talking about you should try to have at least some idea yourself.
I have a gut feeling that the masterminds who were pushing for the civil rights outcry knew the prosecution wouldn't win and Zimmerman being acquitted would exacerbate the whole racism debacle.
So either a convicted murderer goes to jail and race relations in America is a topic back in the forefronts of people's minds or Zimmerman remains free (so no change of state from how things were prior to the trial) and race relations in America is a topic that becomes hotly discussed?
I know you're trying to paint that bit of political maneuvering in a negative light, but if it's truly what went down I think it's pretty ****ing brilliant. Kudos to the conspiracy.
I haven't been following the case all that religiously since the week it happened, but from the summaries and bulletpoints I've seen during the trial, there's been little to contradict that. At least insofar as Trayvon not being enough of an aggressor to be a threat needing killing out of self-defense. Which is why it was more surprising to me that Zimmerman was acquitted of manslaughter, but the prosecution in this trial built a flimsy case so I really shouldn't be surprised.
From what I understand of the case; Zimmerman was justified in using self defense even though he was arguably the aggressor in the situation because Martin escalated the confrontation to the point where Zimmerman could not escape serious harm without killing Martin.
Let me use an analogy to clarify what I'm trying to say. If I slap you, the Florida self defense law says that you can either run from the situation or slap back. If you then decide not to slap me back, but instead to start beating the **** out of me, you are not protected under self defense. In fact, because you escalated the fight to the point where I am now getting the **** beaten out of me, I am justified to use lethal force to defend myself IF I cannot reasonably flee the situation.
---
Based on the evidence in regards to the situation, Trayvon Martin was on top of Zimmerman in an MMA style position and punching him. Evidence from the altercation showed that Martin had grass stains on his pants and bloody knuckles from punching Zimmerman so hard while Zimmerman had cuts on his face, the back of his neck, and grass stains on his back to support this claim. Additionally, Dr. Vincent Di Maio - one of the best experts in gunshots, testified to confirm based on the that ballistics evidence supported Zimmerman's claim that Martin was on top of him, leaning over him, and beating him up before Zimmerman shot Martin.
From the article:
"The most important point is the nature of the defect in the clothing and the powder tattooing," he added, referring to the bullet hole in Martin’s clothes and the marks on his chest. “If you lean over somebody, you will notice that the clothing tends to fall away from the chest. If instead you’re lying on your back and somebody shoots you, the clothing is going to be against your chest. So that the fact that we know the clothing was 2 to 4 inches away is consistent with somebody leaning over the person doing the shooting, and that the clothing is 2 to 4 inches away from the person firing.”
It's important to note that under the self defense act, Zimmerman would only be justified to use lethal force to protect himself if he could not flee. Since Martin was on top of him attacking him (and the evidence supports this) he was justified to defend himself.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Even if the author is silenced, the performance is stopped, the story will not end.
Whether it's a comedy or a tragedy, if there is cheering, the story will continue on.
Just like the many lives.
For the us who are still in it and still in the journey, send warm blessings.
- We will continue to walk down this path until eternity.
I love this phrasing. Yes, the advanced technique of... sitting on top of someone.
Well, when you're on top of someone punching them in the face, I'm fairly certain that that's a form of mixed marshal arts. In fact, in competitions when this happens the referee usually steps in because that's the point where the pinned person begins to lose the ability to defend themselves and serious injuries can happen to them if the fighting isn't stopped.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Even if the author is silenced, the performance is stopped, the story will not end.
Whether it's a comedy or a tragedy, if there is cheering, the story will continue on.
Just like the many lives.
For the us who are still in it and still in the journey, send warm blessings.
- We will continue to walk down this path until eternity.
Kicking someone isn't "Karate"
and sitting on someone punching them isn't "Mixed Martial Arts"
Just like tripping someone isn't "Judo"
Calling it those things is just one way of twisting opinions from facts.
****
The jury got it right in the courtroom. However...
I still think we have a race problem.
Would Z have followed T if T was not a black guy in a hoodie? (I lean towards no, he was judging T by his color/appearance)
Should Z have stopped once he called the police? (I lean towards yes, after he called the cops he should have let them handle it)
Was Z given the benefit of the doubt from the very beginning by the initial contact police officers, and later by other law enforcement officials because T was Black? (I say yes, I think if T was white, the cops would have treated this more seriously from the beginning and not just believed Z's story)
Do I think this unfortunate incident was unnecessarily blown out of proportion by a race baiting media who loves to throw fuel on fires and keep us as Americans as racially divided as possible?
Absolutely.
Racism is systemic oppression of ethnic minorities, not pointing out one of the consequences of systemic oppression of ethnic minorities.
Racism: noun
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
I am using the 3rd definition. Where did you get yours? As far as I can tell you pulled it from your behind.
Claiming that Zimmerman "clearly" isn't white is kind of weird considering Hispanic/non-Hispanic whites and all the white people not having a problem with him being called white.
Does this guy:
Look white to you?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hispanics don't count as "people of color"? I guess not?
I notice you didn't use the word "minority" or anything.
Whether or not Stand Your Ground laws are good laws is a matter for another thread. The prosecution decided, originally and correctly, not to pursue charges because of the exact reasons this trial put on display.
So you're saying only kill if you can get away with it.
There's a famous statement in tort law.
It is cheaper to kill a defendant than maim him.
Not at all. I am not advocating killing at all. I am saying that most PEOPLE will act within the framework of the law. Also, in Canada Zimmerman would most likely not have had a gun to shoot anyone with. (This is not to be interpreted as an endorsement of gun control)
Does that mean Zimmerman can now sue his estate for damages?
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
Often mistakenly quoted as "It is often cheaper to kill a man than to maim him.", Prosser, in actuality, wrote "The results was that it was more profitable for the D to kill the P than to scratch him, and that the most grievous of all injuries left the bereaved family of the victim, who frequently were destitute, without a remedy."
Loved ones may pursue civil litigation, for which the standard of proof is comparatively lesser than that for criminal prosecution, for wrongful death. Wrongful death can be as dear, if not more so than, punitive damages. Prosser's maxim does not always hold water these days, but thank goodness it has the "often"!
If you're feeling awful and spiteful, you can hope that the Martin's will file a wrongful death suit (on top of the criminal prosecution). The standard of evidence is lower, so they may in fact win this.
The verdict of not guilty seems entirely reasonable, whereas a guilty verdict would have been an actual travesty. Reasonable doubt was introduced into the prosecution's case, and the prosecution's case wasn't that robust anyway.
"Stand your ground" is an utterly absurd law (and, no, there is no inconsistency).
Careful with conflating assault with battery and vice versa. Also, both assault and battery can lead to civil and criminal liability, but criminal assault and criminal battery and variants thereof cannot lead to civil action and a successful suit for damages.
All in all, this has been interesting to read about.
It was reasonable because the prosecution had no evidence or anything while the defendants had everything going for them. They had Zimmerman to testify, they had evidence, they had competent lawyers.
US law is blind and unbiased and you are innocent until proven guilty.
Difference in charge. The person you linked was charged with aggravated assault with a weapon, not second degree murder. The prosecution had a lot less doubt to overcome (several more witnesses), and a charge more in line with the crime. Now, her sentencing is totally ridiculous, but that's an issue with Florida law, not as far as I can tell with any racism.
Edit: So far it looks like the only riots we're going to see are a few in Oakland
Maybe this story can finally leave the front page, and we can go back to addressing more nationally significant news
Well of course. He would have broken the law as soon he left the house with a loaded gun(which is illegal).
none
Modern
UBG B/U/G control
BBB MBC
WUR Control
WWW Prison
RRR Goblins
Legacy
BBB Pox
UBG B/U/G Control
UWU StoneBlade
UW Miracle Control
I mean, they played the part of the 911 tape where Zimmerman said "he's black," but not the part where the operator said "what race is he?" They played the part of the 911 tape where the operator said "you can quit following him if you want," but not the part where Zimmerman said "okay." They were all like "what was he doing with a gun anyway? see, he was paranoid," but it was later revealed that the police told him he should carry one. They showed Martin's childhood photos, to make it look like Zimmerman attacked a kid. They made a big deal about how Zimmerman was an idiot for thinking he had to use self-defense against an unarmed person, even though the FBI says that unarmed commit 2-3 murders every day. They photoshopped Zimmerman to make him look white.
What did the media THINK was going to happen? Were we supposed to go "oh, the media were lying to make it look like he was guilty. He's probably guilty anyway"?
Modern: U M'Olk; B Goodstuff
He was not acquitted because of Stand Your Ground. The defense could not use the law since they would have to contradict Zimmerman's testimony. Stand Your Ground is an extension of self defense and if thing happened as Zimmerman said then he had a claim to basic self defense as justification for his actions. Stand Your Ground is for when the accused could have walked away or defused the situation. If Martin really attacked Zimmerman and was on top of him then Zimmerman could not have disengaged and thus would have a claim to basic self defense.
The reasonable doubt mainly comes from there being no real evidence of who actually started the fight. Zimmerman's actions were very provocative but it is not unreasonable to think that an angry Martin might have thrown the first punch.
Stand Your Ground is a bad law because it gives people the freedom to escalate dangerous situation if they think they are in the right.
It certainly sounded like Zimmerman was the aggressor here, given the initial reports. This is why we have trials though, and as biased against him I am after hearing the initial reports, I can only hope that, given all of the information available, this was the best outcome.
Not thinking like how I described can cause one to get lowered in the social structure, to have additional charges added in court cases, and to lose money. I <3 when people accidentally prove me right.
Modern: U M'Olk; B Goodstuff
At it's core (as in the events leading up to Trayvon's death)? No, probably not. But race and attitudes towards it almost certainly influenced to varying degrees the events that followed. The police investigation, the media coverage, the trial. It's those things that became racially-charged and helped make this case stand for more than one boy's death.
I haven't been following the case all that religiously since the week it happened, but from the summaries and bulletpoints I've seen during the trial, there's been little to contradict that. At least insofar as Trayvon not being enough of an aggressor to be a threat needing killing out of self-defense. Which is why it was more surprising to me that Zimmerman was acquitted of manslaughter, but the prosecution in this trial built a flimsy case so I really shouldn't be surprised.
It leaves a bad taste in my mouth, mostly for the 'information available' part. The prosecution had little to work with and that this outcome was clear for some time feels like a failing of the justice system (including police investigation) to me.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
I have a gut feeling that the masterminds who were pushing for the civil rights outcry knew the prosecution wouldn't win and Zimmerman being acquitted would exacerbate the whole racism debacle.
It actually is. And your ad hominem attack does nothing to support your argument. It is CLEARLY racism to take a case that is all about reasonable doubt and turn it into a racial issue. Especially a black vs white racial issue when the accused is clearly not white. Before you accuse others of not knowing what they are talking about you should try to have at least some idea yourself.
So either a convicted murderer goes to jail and race relations in America is a topic back in the forefronts of people's minds or Zimmerman remains free (so no change of state from how things were prior to the trial) and race relations in America is a topic that becomes hotly discussed?
I know you're trying to paint that bit of political maneuvering in a negative light, but if it's truly what went down I think it's pretty ****ing brilliant. Kudos to the conspiracy.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
After being found not guilty, I am *not* okay with this. double jeopardy laws mean nothing, hmm?
Source?
From what I understand of the case; Zimmerman was justified in using self defense even though he was arguably the aggressor in the situation because Martin escalated the confrontation to the point where Zimmerman could not escape serious harm without killing Martin.
Let me use an analogy to clarify what I'm trying to say. If I slap you, the Florida self defense law says that you can either run from the situation or slap back. If you then decide not to slap me back, but instead to start beating the **** out of me, you are not protected under self defense. In fact, because you escalated the fight to the point where I am now getting the **** beaten out of me, I am justified to use lethal force to defend myself IF I cannot reasonably flee the situation.
---
Based on the evidence in regards to the situation, Trayvon Martin was on top of Zimmerman in an MMA style position and punching him. Evidence from the altercation showed that Martin had grass stains on his pants and bloody knuckles from punching Zimmerman so hard while Zimmerman had cuts on his face, the back of his neck, and grass stains on his back to support this claim. Additionally, Dr. Vincent Di Maio - one of the best experts in gunshots, testified to confirm based on the that ballistics evidence supported Zimmerman's claim that Martin was on top of him, leaning over him, and beating him up before Zimmerman shot Martin.
From the article:
It's important to note that under the self defense act, Zimmerman would only be justified to use lethal force to protect himself if he could not flee. Since Martin was on top of him attacking him (and the evidence supports this) he was justified to defend himself.
Whether it's a comedy or a tragedy, if there is cheering, the story will continue on.
Just like the many lives.
For the us who are still in it and still in the journey, send warm blessings.
- We will continue to walk down this path until eternity.
Well, when you're on top of someone punching them in the face, I'm fairly certain that that's a form of mixed marshal arts. In fact, in competitions when this happens the referee usually steps in because that's the point where the pinned person begins to lose the ability to defend themselves and serious injuries can happen to them if the fighting isn't stopped.
Whether it's a comedy or a tragedy, if there is cheering, the story will continue on.
Just like the many lives.
For the us who are still in it and still in the journey, send warm blessings.
- We will continue to walk down this path until eternity.
Kicking someone isn't "Karate"
and sitting on someone punching them isn't "Mixed Martial Arts"
Just like tripping someone isn't "Judo"
Calling it those things is just one way of twisting opinions from facts.
****
The jury got it right in the courtroom. However...
I still think we have a race problem.
Would Z have followed T if T was not a black guy in a hoodie? (I lean towards no, he was judging T by his color/appearance)
Should Z have stopped once he called the police? (I lean towards yes, after he called the cops he should have let them handle it)
Was Z given the benefit of the doubt from the very beginning by the initial contact police officers, and later by other law enforcement officials because T was Black? (I say yes, I think if T was white, the cops would have treated this more seriously from the beginning and not just believed Z's story)
Do I think this unfortunate incident was unnecessarily blown out of proportion by a race baiting media who loves to throw fuel on fires and keep us as Americans as racially divided as possible?
Absolutely.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
i seem to have been slightly mistaken. apparently obama didn't call for the charges, but rather supported them.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/14/naacp-calls-federal-civil-rights-charges-against-g/
Racism: noun
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
I am using the 3rd definition. Where did you get yours? As far as I can tell you pulled it from your behind.
Does this guy:
Look white to you?