Active thread - Zimmerman Not Guilty

[soberups]

But the law is not about "defend". It is about "fear". That is a problem.

Why?

If someone is being attacked and fears for their life, should they not be entitled to defend themselves?

Look, I'm not defending Zimmerman. I have stated from the beginning that he was an idiot for getting out of the car and confronting Martin while armed. I think he is an overzealous wannabe who "profiled" Martin based not on race but on age, manner of dress and behavior. But the reality is that none of that is actually what he was on trial for. He was on trial for murder and manslaughter, and the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty of either of those offenses under Florida law, and based upon the admittedly limited amount of information that I have I would tend to agree with that verdict.

Ironically enough, it may very well have been the liberal media and the race baiters like Sharpton etc. who are indirectly responsible for Zimmerman being acquitted of all criminal charges. They are the ones who pretty much forced the prosecution to overplay its hand and charge Zimmerman with murder when the evidence was weak. I'm just speculating here, but I'd be willing to bet that Zimmerman might have been willing to plead guilty to a much lesser charge if the prosecution had felt free to offer such a deal, but the public outcry against such an offer (fueled by Sharpton and the like) would have been such that the "safer" play was to go ahead and charge him with murder even at the risk of an acquittal.

 

[bbsam]

Because the law does not even require an attack. It only requires fear.

 

[oldngray]

Fear is important because some older self defense laws required people to already be severely injured before they could defend themselves, which created situations of were they injured enough or if they wait until they get hurt worse it might be too late. That is why the stand your ground laws are better in many ways. They are more equal to all. People complaining should love these self defense laws since they are completely non discriminatory.

 

[oldngray]

And it has to be a realistic fear of imminent bodily harm or death.

 

[bbsam]

And it has to be a realistic fear of imminent bodily harm or death.

But that is a gray area that needs to be explored. With a dead victim not able to tell his side of the story and no witnesses, anything is possible.

 

[Upsmule]

And anything is speculative.

 

[bbsam]

But should the law be subjective at this level? I'm sure that I could be an imposing figure to some (yes, race plays a part of that) in an altercation. Altercations can become heated, loud, and some may view threatening. What point can I be shot? If I said something as mindless as, "I oughta beat the GD outta you!" and I have the size and appearance of one who could do so, fire away? Find out later that I have no criminal background or even history of fighting whatsoever? "Oh, it's tragic, but he shouldn't have used such language"?

 

[soberups]

But should the law be subjective at this level? I'm sure that I could be an imposing figure to some (yes, race plays a part of that) in an altercation. Altercations can become heated, loud, and some may view threatening. What point can I be shot? If I said something as mindless as, "I oughta beat the GD outta you!" and I have the size and appearance of one who could do so, fire away? Find out later that I have no criminal background or even history of fighting whatsoever? "Oh, it's tragic, but he shouldn't have used such language"?

It boils down to what a reasonable person would do under the circumstances with the information that they have available to them at the time.

I'm 6-1 and 275, so the reasonable action for me to take in a confrontation with you might not be the same as the reasonable action for a woman, or a small or elderly or disabled person to take.

Your background or history of fighting is irrelevant, since I have no way of knowing that at the time. It boils down to your behavior, and what a reasonable person would do under the circumstances to protect themselves.

 

[soberups]

If I said something as mindless as, "I oughta beat the GD outta you!" and I have the size and appearance of one who could do so, fire away?

If you said something like that to me, I would leave in order to avoid any further confrontation. That is what a reasonable person would do.

If you back me into a corner and prevent me from leaving...and if there is a sufficient disparity of force between you and I in terms of my gender, size, age and physical condition...then at some point I am entitled to take you at your word and respond accordingly. Should I be obligated to allow you to hit me first and badly injure me before taking steps to defend myself? No.

Armed self defense is a fundamental human right. I have the right to not be attacked, and to respond to an attack with the appropriate level of force required to end that attack. What is appropriate depends entirely upon the circumstances.

 

[bbsam]

And then it's up to the cops to say, "Yeah, I bet that was scary. Go on home.". I think I know enough of fear to know that scared people are often completely irrational. This law has the potential of making me responsible for their fear. And yes, race plays a part in that.

 

[bbsam]

If you said something like that to me, I would leave in order to avoid any further confrontation. That is what a reasonable person would do.

If you back me into a corner and prevent me from leaving...and if there is a sufficient disparity of force between you and I in terms of my gender, size, age and physical condition...then at some point I am entitled to take you at your word and respond accordingly. Should I be obligated to allow you to hit me first and badly injure me before taking steps to defend myself? No.

Armed self defense is a fundamental human right. I have the right to not be attacked, and to respond to an attack with the appropriate level of force required to end that attack. What is appropriate depends entirely upon the circumstances.

And is that law not just ripe for abuse? Confrontation over, I'm walking away. You're still pissed. You yell out, "Hey bbsam!". I turn and start back. BAM BAM. Oh, you thought you saw a gun in my waist band. GTFO. That's ridiculous, but completely within the bounds of the law.

 

[soberups]

And is that law not just ripe for abuse? Confrontation over, I'm walking away. You're still pissed. You yell out, "Hey bbsam!". I turn and start back. BAM BAM. Oh, you thought you saw a gun in my waist band. GTFO. That's ridiculous, but completely within the bounds of the law.

Not true.

Assuming there were witnesses to the fact that the confrontation had ended and that you were walking away, if I in fact hollered something at you in effect restarting the confrontation, I would probably be guilty of murder or at least manslaughter.

As far as "claiming to see something in your waistband" goes, it is up to the police and the prosecutor to decide whether or not to believe that claim and press charges, and it is up to a jury to determine the facts of the case. Thats the way our system works.

 

[toonertoo]

I don't know what I would do if attacked. I don't carry. I guess I would talk my way out of it, and use street smarts. I am pretty strong, but I don't know if I could fight my way out of a wet paper bag, I've never been in a fight. I turn the other way when I see a gang of kids, and I don't care what color they are.
I avoid confronting people doing stupid things, as long as children, and animals are not involved, then my mouth runs like a water fountain.
I guess I would pray, and hope a good Samaritan came along.
I think this thing has been talked to death. Yes its sad. But the facts show, the FBI found, and the jury concluded, he was not guilty.; And that it had nothing to do with race. Show over. In fact the defendant was helpful to many black people, but no one wants to discuss that.
Study the stand your ground laws, whatever. The presidents comments IMO were to fuel a race riot that was not fueling itself fast enough for him.

 

[bbsam]

Not true.

Assuming there were witnesses to the fact that the confrontation had ended and that you were walking away, if I in fact hollered something at you in effect restarting the confrontation, I would probably be guilty of murder or at least manslaughter.

As far as "claiming to see something in your waistband" goes, it is up to the police and the prosecutor to decide whether or not to believe that claim and press charges, and it is up to a jury to determine the facts of the case. Thats the way our system works.

That is the way our system works. But that assume the trigger man is telling the truth, that there are witnesses, and that the police officer has some doubt before it gets to the prosecutor. The burden for deadly force now is so low as to beg any offender to claim it whether warranted or not. It's a "wink and a nod" to the shooter. Far too subjective.

 

[bbsam]

I don't know what I would do if attacked. I don't carry. I guess I would talk my way out of it, and use street smarts. I am pretty strong, but I don't know if I could fight my way out of a wet paper bag, I've never been in a fight. I turn the other way when I see a gang of kids, and I don't care what color they are.
I avoid confronting people doing stupid things, as long as children, and animals are not involved, then my mouth runs like a water fountain.
I guess I would pray, and hope a good Samaritan came along.
I think this thing has been talked to death. Yes its sad. But the facts show, the FBI found, and the jury concluded, he was not guilty.; And that it had nothing to do with race. Show over. In fact the defendant was helpful to many black people, but no one wants to discuss that.
Study the stand your ground laws, whatever. The presidents comments IMO were to fuel a race riot that was not fueling itself fast enough for him.

Race was never argued in evidence in the Zimmerman case, the FBI has not concluded it's investigation, and people are still talking about it so I have to disagree with your conclusions. Maybe we can prevent further tragedies, but calling it one and sweeping it under the rug won't get it done.

 

[afterthought]

Race was never argued in evidence in the Zimmerman case, the FBI has not concluded it's investigation, and people are still talking about it so I have to disagree with your conclusions. Maybe we can prevent further tragedies, but calling it one and sweeping it under the rug won't get it done.

" the FBI has not concluded it's investigation"
16 months? Not at all like the FBI to take so long, especially with all the evidence.

No politics in this at all. So sad people buy into this..
FBI, Justice Department to Investigate Trayvon Martin Killing - ABC News

 

[soberups]

That is the way our system works. But that assume the trigger man is telling the truth, that there are witnesses, and that the police officer has some doubt before it gets to the prosecutor. The burden for deadly force now is so low as to beg any offender to claim it whether warranted or not. It's a "wink and a nod" to the shooter. Far too subjective.

Not true.

If anything, the Zimmerman case will cause other gung-ho wannabes to rethink their philosophy regarding how and when to use deadly force. Zimmerman was acquitted of murder but his life is effectively ruined. He is probably bankrupt from legal fees, unemployable, and at risk of retaliation any time he goes out in public. His is a case study for what a legally armed civilian should not do, and no rational person would want to be in his situation. Remember also that there are many hundreds of thousands of trained and law-abiding civilians nationwide who are licensed and carry concealed on a daily basis without incident. There are also many cases where the mere presence and display of a firearm by a legally armed civilian is enough to prevent a potentially violent situation from escalating.

 

[soberups]

Race was never argued in evidence in the Zimmerman case, the FBI has not concluded it's investigation, and people are still talking about it so I have to disagree with your conclusions. Maybe we can prevent further tragedies, but calling it one and sweeping it under the rug won't get it done.

If anything, Zimmermans being white made his case more difficult. With all the media scrutiny and the specter of racism hanging over the case, the bias would have been to convict him in the interest of political correctness.

 

[moreluck]

Via Breitbart:

Nationwide rallies against the acquittal of George Zimmerman in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin drew small crowds, a sign that Americans had largely accepted the verdict and that race relations are not nearly as frayed as Al Sharpton’s National Action Network had sought to indicate. The flagship rally in New York only drew a crowd of “hundreds,” while a rally in Newport News, Virginia struggled to draw two dozen.

Demonstrators showed solidarity with Martin by wearing hooded sweatshirts (“hoodies”) despite generally hot temperatures, protesting what they–and President Barack Obama–suggested was Zimmerman’s profiling of Martin based on his race and dress. Young black men across the country, many said, face similar profiling by police and by private citizens every day, placing their liberty at risk and their lives in danger.
​

 

[bbsam]

If anything, Zimmermans being white made his case more difficult. With all the media scrutiny and the specter of racism hanging over the case, the bias would have been to convict him in the interest of political correctness.

But the jury ruled ACCORDING TO THE LAW. Yes, they ruled according to the law. But it took all the pressure in the world to get to that point. To many simply would take Zimmerman at his word, send him home and be done with it. And that may be the law and what I and others are saying is that it's a very bad law. Disagree? Fine. But don't assume that your disagreement should be cause to shut others up. This is how we get change.