George Zimmerman found Not Guilty.

[birch]

Zimmerman's guilt or innocence is a question of law, not philosophy.
If you want to discuss whether the law is fair, or moral, that might be a philosophical question.

zimmerman could have been convicted of manslaughter, some think that is just or unjust. what a jury or judge deems of weight or what they dismiss or excuse as well as what they don't in determination is up to their judgement, moral faculties and thinking just as the differing opinions on this thread.

if it was just a case of law, it's easy and this thread not need last more than a page. we already know what the syg law is, that doesn't mean the verdict was correct or that gz couldn't have been held accountable on other counts. that's what this "particular" jury decided.

 

[GeoffP]

Here's how powerful the "stand your ground" defense is.
Just bring your gun along, and you are the toughest guy in town.

Fuck, and I thought the Martin case was egregious. Is the problem the concept, or retarded judges?

 

[Captain Kremmen]

@Birch
You are right. Good point.
It is the jury's decision, not just the law.
But they should take law and precedent and evidence into account.

Things may have gone differently if Zimmerman had testified,
but the defense were too smart for that.

@Geoff
I don't know. I didn't go far into the article to find those two examples.
There may be worse ones.
There might as well be a law that you can kill someone if you are wearing a green hat.

 

[wegs]

@Birch
You are right. Good point.
It is the jury's decision, not just the law.
But they should take law and precedent and evidence into account.

Things may have gone differently if Zimmerman had testified,
but the defense were too smart for that.

The jury has a responsibility to the law and evidence of the case only. They can't make decisions arbitrarily.
While GZ was the defendant, the prosecution was responsible for the burden of proof, not the defense.
The jury felt the prosecution didn't prove its case...that is why he was acquitted.

 

[Russ_Watters]

Neither was Martin when he was followed and then chased by Zimmerman.

I notice no one has given Martin the right to stand his ground. Then again, that claim seems to be reserved for only particular people.

1. Zimmerman didn't "chase" Martin. And at the time Martin attacked him, Zimmerman wasn't even following him.
2. Martin had a right to stand his ground. He did not have a right to attack Zimmerman. And since Martin wasn't on trial, it has no relevance and no reason to bring it up.

 

[Russ_Watters]

and when Zimmerman followed Martin...Martin wasn't doing anything illegal to warrant being followed.

That's really neither here nor there.

 

[birch]

The jury has a responsibility to the law and evidence of the case only. They can't make decisions arbitrarily.
While GZ was the defendant, the prosecution was responsible for the burden of proof, not the defense.
The jury felt the prosecution didn't prove its case...that is why he was acquitted.

what you are describing is how the process is supposed to work in the textbook sense. that actually isn't true when you factor in real life. it is the decision of the jury as to what they ignored and what they considered. that is making decisions arbitrarily within the law. actually a jury can outright ignore a law as well. there was a case that a man killed his child's murderer admittedly and the jury acquitted him, with another jury that may not have happened. again, there is this belief that juries decisions are based on what is presented or not. some juries are better and some juries are not, in all cases.

take the marissa alexander case in point; she should have been charged for reckless endangerment not aggravated assault and sentenced to 20 years. again, the belief that somehow everyone in a court room is automatically with sound judgement, fairness, without bias/ prejudice, intelligent and everything is working perfectly etc is unrealistic. it is no different than the court of public opinion with all the myriad facts and evidence and what do you see? they are not coming to the same verdict.

 

[Russ_Watters]

That's an excellent point. The presumption throughout this case has been that Zimmerman was attacked first. How do we know this? How do we know Zimmerman didn't provoke the altercation? Because Zimmerman says so? lol

We can't know for sure, but on the other hand, you can't convict someone based on speculation.

 

[Russ_Watters]

you are trying to equate what he did to innocently bumping into someone on the street. if the law was just he should be rotting in prison for some time for what he did.

he was reckless only in "colloquial?" excuse me? come again? wtf?

gz defied police to not follow, gz was locked and loaded and ready which is not what neighborhood watch does, gz violated neighborhood watch rules and protocol, gz even by his own account (he had several) stated he tried to apprehend and detain. "colloquial" my a@@.

you can't trust the public as per this example

"Colloquial" means in common, imprecise language, as opposed to in the precise meaning of the law.

 

[Russ_Watters]

By the way: while in one sense it may be describable as "reckless" for Zimmerman to have been carrying a gun, we should not overlook the possibility that that saved his life.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

what you are describing is how the process is supposed to work in the textbook sense. that actually isn't true when you factor in real life. it is the decision of the jury as to what they ignored and what they considered. that is making decisions arbitrarily within the law. actually a jury can outright ignore a law as well. there was a case that a man killed his child's murderer admittedly and the jury acquitted him, with another jury that may not have happened. again, there is this belief that juries decisions are based on what is presented or not. some juries are better and some juries are not, in all cases. take the marissa alexander case in point; she should have been charged for reckless endangerment not aggravated assault and sentenced to 20 years. again, the belief that somehow everyone in a court room is automatically with sound judgement, fairness etc is unrealistic. it is no different than the court of public opinion with all the myriad facts and evidence and what do you see? they are not coming to the same verdict.

Jury nullification is legal in the United States. Members of a jury are free to vote their conscience, prejudices, or even insanity--although we try very hard to keep insane people off of juries. This principle is not widely publicized so I'd guess that a large majority of the population is unaware of it. In most courts attorneys are told by the judge that if they inform the jury of this right they will be held in contempt of court. People who come to courthouses, for the specific purpose of informing potential jurors of their right to nullification, have been jailed. So if you're going to do it, do it from a couple of blocks away!

The priciple goes back to the colonial era. Jurors often felt that the law that was being enforced was unjust, so they simply found the defendant not guilty, even though everyone knew that he was, technically, guilty.

This is a get-out-of-jail-free card for the defendant because of our Constitutional protection against double jeopardy. Once you have been found not guilty of an offense, the state is prohibited from putting you on trial a second time for the same offense.

 

[birch]

"Colloquial" means in common, imprecise language, as opposed to in the precise meaning of the law.

and?? there was plenty of "evidence" to convict zimmerman of manslaughter but the jury decided to just hone in on 'fear for his life' syg defense, ignoring all else and dismissing any responsibility on zimmerman's part nor holding him accountable for his recklessness, poor judgement and actions that led to it.

 

[birch]

Jury nullification is legal in the United States. Members of a jury are free to vote their conscience, prejudices, or even insanity--although we try very hard to keep insane people off of juries. This principle is not widely publicized so I'd guess that a large majority of the population is unaware of it. In most courts attorneys are told by the judge that if they inform the jury of this right they will be held in contempt of court. People who come to courthouses, for the specific purpose of informing potential jurors of their right to nullification, have been jailed. So if you're going to do it, do it from a couple of blocks away!

The priciple goes back to the colonial era. Jurors often felt that the law that was being enforced was unjust, so they simply found the defendant not guilty, even though everyone knew that he was, technically, guilty.

This is a get-out-of-jail-free card for the defendant because of our Constitutional protection against double jeopardy. Once you have been found not guilty of an offense, the state is prohibited from putting you on trial a second time for the same offense.

the judge can overturn it but he/she didn't. why? because he/she is human and subject to his/her own judgement, legitimate or not and on what is just. the purpose of law is to hand out justice, justice is based on morality. the correct protocol for changing laws may not be in the courtroom but as this case demonstrates it is a start by publicity for that reason. that being said, even the zimmerman case demonstrates more than that as even omission of responsibility and dismissal of responsibility, in fact, also occurred. that was the decision of the particular jury. i'm sure this happens in many cases as justice is not completely fair or true in outcome as humans are flawed, that doesn't excuse it though.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

The jury has a responsibility to the law and evidence of the case only. They can't make decisions arbitrarily.
While GZ was the defendant, the prosecution was responsible for the burden of proof, not the defense.
The jury felt the prosecution didn't prove its case...that is why he was acquitted.

You are absolutely right about that.
But if a good lawyer made Zimmerman look unsavory or duplicitous,
it could sway their judgement.
Keeping him silent made that difficult.
Kudos for the defense. A job well done.

@ Tiassa
I can't find a case where a white person has used the defense unsuccessfully in a case where a black person has been the victim.
Not all the cases have photos, so I can't say for definite.
You may be right that it is a carte blanche permit for white people to shoot black people.

 

[birch]

We can't know for sure, but on the other hand, you can't convict someone based on speculation.

purposeful blinders and the jury was dumb enough to not realize as well. yes, you are right and you can't convict someone on speculation but equally you can convict someone or hold them responsible on some count for their actions if they are negligent, in violation, dangerous, or a result of poor judgement. dismissing flagrant and obvious responsiblity is neither justice. the jury was stupid in that they took the angle that zimmerman was on trial to prove if he legitimately needed to defend himself at a critical moment, stupidly ignoring the fact he wantonly put himself (in violation of neighborhood watch) and the other in the situation which escalated and held him to no responsiblility on any count for this.

 

[birch]

You are absolutely right about that.
But if a good lawyer made Zimmerman look unsavory or duplicitous,
it could sway their judgement.
Keeping him silent made that difficult.
Kudos for the defense. A job well done.

yes and no. it worked for this jury and their overal makeup, another jury may see that as a red flag that he didn't testify.

 

[birch]

By the way: while in one sense it may be describable as "reckless" for Zimmerman to have been carrying a gun, we should not overlook the possibility that that saved his life.

perfect example of out of context reasoning, something a dirty lawyer would do and some juries would easily fall for. it may have saved his life but the issue is he acted as a neighborhood watchman violating those safety rules placing himself and the other in confrontation and danger. in this case, another had to die because of him.

 

[Russ_Watters]

and??

Your "Wtf" made it sound like you needed me to define it for you.

there was plenty of "evidence" to convict zimmerman of manslaughter but the jury decided to just hone in on 'fear for his life' syg defense, ignoring all else and dismissing any responsibility on zimmerman's part nor holding him accountable for his recklessness, poor judgement and actions that led to it.

Well yes; and Zimmerman admitted to the killing, so there was nothing to prove about it. So self defense was the entire question of the trial. That's how self defense works. So I'm not sure what you are complaining for: the process is all you could hope for, you just didn't get your preferred outcome.

 

[wegs]

what you are describing is how the process is supposed to work in the textbook sense. that actually isn't true when you factor in real life. it is the decision of the jury as to what they ignored and what they considered. that is making decisions arbitrarily within the law. actually a jury can outright ignore a law as well. there was a case that a man killed his child's murderer admittedly and the jury acquitted him, with another jury that may not have happened. again, there is this belief that juries decisions are based on what is presented or not. some juries are better and some juries are not, in all cases.

take the marissa alexander case in point; she should have been charged for reckless endangerment not aggravated assault and sentenced to 20 years. again, the belief that somehow everyone in a court room is automatically with sound judgement, fairness, without bias/ prejudice, intelligent and everything is working perfectly etc is unrealistic. it is no different than the court of public opinion with all the myriad facts and evidence and what do you see? they are not coming to the same verdict.

This is a great post and should be underscored. Arbitrarily within the law, I'm not sure that I've heard of that before, but you are right indeed. Thanks for the explanation. One of the main problems too was the initial charge of second degree murder, which the prosecution was basically trying to establish that GZ profiled and sought after TM and shot him to death while TM wasn't doing anything illegal. That charge is hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt ...I didn't think GZ acted in that way. So, the jury can only deal with the charges placed before it...and then the lesser charge was brought in down the road. Correct me if I'm wrong, please.
The jury while everything that's been said here by you is true, can only do so much with the charges presented to it. I blame more so the prosecution, honestly. They were quite sloppy throughout. :/

We can't know for sure, but on the other hand, you can't convict someone based on speculation.

But you can acquit someone based on it, I guess. Hmmm
I know, the burden of proof was on the prosecution.

By the way: while in one sense it may be describable as "reckless" for Zimmerman to have been carrying a gun, we should not overlook the possibility that that saved his life.

He put himself in a precarious situation to begin with then when things went awry, he shot TM.


Which leads me to a question about neighborhood watch. What are the limits of it? I imagine every township is different, but there seems to be a WAY broad definition of it as it relates to this case, IMHO.

Thoughts?

 

[Russ_Watters]

purposeful blinders and the jury was dumb enough to not realize as well. yes, you are right and you can't convict someone on speculation but equally you can convict someone or hold them responsible on some count for their actions if they are negligent, in violation, dangerous, or a result of poor judgement. dismissing flagrant and obvious responsiblity is neither justice. the jury was stupid in that they took the angle that zimmerman was on trial to prove if he legitimately needed to defend himself at a critical moment, stupidly ignoring the fact he wantonly put himself (in violation of neighborhood watch) and the other in the situation which escalated and held him to no responsiblility on any count for this.

Purposeful blinders on what? Because they didn't speculate about what you would like? Look, I was being really generous here: the fact of the matter is that the evidence available contradicts your speculation. It isn't just that it was thin or unsupported. There was no dumbness by the jury here: the facts they had available painted a pretty clear picture of what happened and even if they had chosen not to believe Zimmerman, they still could not have arrived at the story you are speculating about. The evidence simply doesn't support it.

And no, you can't make up charges and convict him for "some count for their actions". The jury even asked to make sure they had all possible resolutions available to them but ultimately they could only decide on the charges provided to them.

And regarding ignoring the jury not considering Zimmerman's actions minutes before the confrontation: we're back to "colloquial" again. You may not like it and it may not seem like "justice" to you, but the fact of the matter is that the law doesn't care what was happening in the minutes before the confrontation. Only the confrontation itself matters. It isn't the jury who is being stupid here.

Heck, the situation isn't even symmetrical as people like to believe here: If Martin had the gun and Zimmerman was the dead one, Martin would almost certainly have been convicted of murder or manslaughter.