Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The whole thing is about race. We are no further along on race issues than we were 50 years ago. Yes, terrible things happened to black people, based on racial bias. But, does that justify the complete overdrive on all cases where a black male is killed by a non black male? No.
Zimmerman states he was attacked, he shot his weapon. Self defense. Slam dunk. No witnesses? Now, his credibility is going to be attacked? Because that is basically what it looks like to me.
I am thinking Zim should keep his mouth shut, and let the state try to prove the case against him.
Please, quit being reasonable in your assessments. No one cares about the facts and/or lack thereof. All they care about is their personal feelings and, moreover, their emotions in this case and others. Their emotions say Zimmerman shouldn't have done what he did. The criminal case be damned!!! No one cares about the truth. Only their feelings.
Hey, thanks for weighing in, Phil. Oh I know that plenty of people are sure they know what's going on here when they really don't. I'm just hoping that maybe there are some people here who will listen to reason if they really understand what is happening here. I know there are those who already "know" what they "know" and won't be swayed, but maybe some will listen to reason.
Quote:
Originally Posted by goldengrain
So Zimmerman can lie through his teeth and so long as he is the only 'witness' to what happened, he can get away with murder? That sounds like what you are saying. Well, there is always jury nullification to hope for.
There are two parts to your post here Goldengrain: 1) the idea that Zimmerman is lying through his teeth and 2) the question of whether he could lie through his teeth and get away with murder. Both of these issues have to do with what due process is all about.
To address the first point, all you've been able to say so far about why Zimmerman should be convicted is that to you he SEEMS to be lying. Getting back to what due process is all about, it is not about convicting people and sending them to prison because someone has a FEELING or INTUITION about whether someone SEEMS to be telling the truth. Due process is all about considering hard evidence.
The second point has to do with the way the American system of due process is supposed to work. That is that a person is presumed to be innocent unless the prosecution can use hard evidence, not speculation or a feeling someone gets about whether someone is telling the truth, to prove that person guilty beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt. That being the case, yes, according to the way the law is SUPPOSED to work, Zimmerman might be lying through his teeth but should still be acquitted--in fact should never have even been charged--because there is not remotely close to enough evidence to prove a case against him beyond a reasonable doubt.
One way to try and see the point here is to consider the possibility, even if you have to think of this as completely hypothetical, that Zimmerman is innocent. What do we have if he gets convicted because of "feelings" people have that he must have done something wrong and does not "seem" to be telling the truth? What we have then takes us right back to the days of burning "witches" at the stake because a bunch of people thought there "seemed" to be something peculiar about them, and maybe someone's cow died a day after a supposed witch happened to walk by the pasture.
The whole thing is about race. We are no further along on race issues than we were 50 years ago. Yes, terrible things happened to black people, based on racial bias. But, does that justify the complete overdrive on all cases where a black male is killed by a non black male? No.
Zimmerman states he was attacked, he shot his weapon. Self defense. Slam dunk. No witnesses? Now, his credibility is going to be attacked? Because that is basically what it looks like to me.
I am thinking Zim should keep his mouth shut, and let the state try to prove the case against him.
You summed it up quite nicely. The facts and evidence show Zimmerman's side of the story is the most plausible. He may well be lying; then again, maybe not. However, NOTHING shows him to be lying, except for the certain segment of mind readers who KNOW he is lying. How they know this, I am not sure. However, they KNOW.
Anyway, yes, it is about race. If Martin was a white male juvenile, this discussion wouldn't be happening. However, a large segment of the population, mostly white, want to show they are no longer racist and will stand up for a black man's rights; no matter what. So much so, they refuse to accept the facts of the case, AS PRESENTED, not as what they think or twist things to be.
Really, what evidence does the state have that Zim did not feel threatened? What evidence does the state have that Zim was the aggressor? What evidence is there that Trayvon did not attack Zim?
The wild card here...will be a jury trial. I see this based on racial bias. Not facts or evidence.
It will be an interesting trial. I can't wait for the evidence...or lack thereof.
Last edited by jasper12; 10-03-2012 at 09:43 PM..
Reason: edit
This whole thing was just senseless. This is only an opinion because I wasn't there, but I think what happened was that when Zimmerman (against professional advice) decided to confront the kid, he probably got the old FU as an answer and from there it was on for both of those immature boys. One had a gun, one had skittles.
Don't bring skittles to a gunfight. Especially a gunfight with an immature wanna-be cop.
I think Zimmerman *might* be guilty of criminally negligent homicide since he set the wheel in motion and he was old enough to know better, but again I wasn't there, so I'm just speculating with everyone else.
I hope they plead it down to manslaughter or something and we don't have to hear about it anymore. It's just sad all the way around.
Zimmerman states he was attacked, he shot his weapon. Self defense. Slam dunk. No witnesses? Now, his credibility is going to be attacked? Because that is basically what it looks like to me.
I am thinking Zim should keep his mouth shut, and let the state try to prove the case against him.
Seems pretty convenient that without any probable cause I can pick out a stranger on the street to follow and confront privately and if they are shot then of course I was just defending myself.
I mean at what point does the person being followed have a right to fear for their life thinking they are going to be robbed, raped or the dude is a serial killer etc?
The person carrying a gun and actively seeking to confront others without any probable cause is definitely going to have their credibility scrutinized....and they should.
NLVgal, I don't want to pick on you, especially since you acknowledge not having been there and therefore not knowing what really happened, which is key to this whole situation. However, your post happens to touch on a number of issues, so I'll use it as the reference point for some observations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NLVgal
This whole thing was just senseless. This is only an opinion because I wasn't there, but I think what happened was that when Zimmerman (against professional advice) decided to confront the kid, he probably got the old FU as an answer and from there it was on for both of those immature boys. One had a gun, one had skittles.
Something important to keep in mind is that it's not only NLVgal who was not there and does not know what happened. Other than Zimmerman no one alive on this Earth knows everything that happened. That leaves a case based on the statements of Zimmerman and witnesses to those moments of the encounter which were witnessed, and some forensic evidence. Keep in mind that the prosecution is supposed to have the burden of proof. Without full knowledge of what happened, or compelling evidence to fill in the gaps, the law is supposed to guarantee that the defendant goes free. There is so little evidence here (with most evidence and witness statements actually supporting Zimmerman's claims) that a conviction as a result of truly impartial due process is impossible.
I think it's important for people to look beyond their emotions regarding this one case, and consider what would happen if it became commonplace for us to lose that guarantee of due process any time general sentiment led to pressure to charge and convict someone a significant portion of the public wanted convicted, even in the absence of a solid case against him. We would lose something that goes way beyond this one case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NLVgal
I think Zimmerman *might* be guilty of criminally negligent homicide since he set the wheel in motion and he was old enough to know better, but again I wasn't there, so I'm just speculating with everyone else.
This is a point I especially want to address, both because I've seen some misunderstanding of this in this thread and because I've seen numerous moments on television news shows where t.v. journalists have talked about the need to consider what charges might result from the fact that Zimmerman started the whole sequence of events that led to Martin's death. Either those journalists were trying to make a story or they need to do some homework before reporting this kind of thing as if they knew it to be fact. In fact, they have it wrong.
This has to do with legal principles related to self-defense and use of force. The key point is that the law allows the use of as much force as necessary for self-defense, but no more force than necessary.
Picture a situation where a Guy A takes a swing at Guy B. The code of the street might say that the guy who takes the first swing opens the door to anything that happens. If he gets his clock cleaned, that just means he picked the wrong person to start something with. The law doesn't see it that way.
Suppose Guy B's immediate reflex response to having this guy swing at him is to swing back. Say Guy B pops him one, or maybe a one-two. Suppose now Guy A sees Guy B as a more formidable opponent than he had thought when he swung at him. In fact he decides he doesn't want to mess with Guy B, and he starts to run away. At this point Guy B is safe. He doesn't need to use any more force to defend himself. No matter what the code of the street might say, the law says that it's over at this point. If Guy B runs after Guy A, catches up to him, and grabs hold of him or tackles him, and tries to continue the fight, by law Guy B is now the aggressor, and in fact the other guy has the right to use necessary force to defend himself against Guy B's aggression, even though he started the whole thing by swinging at Guy B in the first place.
This all has to do with the legal requirement to use only necessary force for self-defense. How does this apply to the incident in question? For Martin to have Zimmerman pinned down on his back, pummeling his face repeatedly, was far beyond the degree of force necessary to protect oneself against someone the person thinks may be following him.
Being followed, or thinking you're being followed, is a tricky situation. Have you ever been in your car and noticed that a car behind you keeps making all the same turns you make? After maybe the fourth turn or so, you begin to seriously wonder whether you're being followed. The several times this has happened to me, the car behind always eventually went in a different direction than I did, so it became clear I wasn't being followed. That's where the suspicion that you're being followed gets touchy. You can't know for sure that the other person doesn't just happen to be going the same way you are.
Consider Zimmerman's story. Zimmerman said that after the police dispatcher told him, "We don't need you to do that" [keep following Martin], he stopped following and started to walk back to his car, but before reaching his car was confronted by Martin, who apparently had circled back around toward Zimmerman and who then assaulted Zimmerman, knocked him to the ground, and began beating him severely. Certainly if this is true, Martin went way beyond reasonable, lawfully allowable use of force to protect himself against the possible threat of someone who seemed to be following him. In fact, if Zimmerman's story is substantially true, one has to ask whether it's reasonable even to think that Martin saw Zimmerman as all that much of a threat if Martin was willing to approach Zimmerman. One would think that if he really considered Zimmerman a threat, Martin would have picked up his pace and tried to put as much distance as possible between himself and Zimmerman.
Suppose Zimmerman is not telling the truth. A number of people posting on this thread seem to be assuming, even have worded their posts as if it is known fact, that Zimmerman "confronted" Martin. The reality is that no one but Zimmerman knows what actually happened when the two first came face to face. Even if Zimmerman did confront Martin in some way, maybe even trying to grab his arm or something of the sort, the kind of beating Martin subjected Zimmerman to while having him pinned to the ground far exceeded any force necessary to protect himself. Every situation is different, but in most such cases, backing away as the guy who seems to have been following you approaches is the safest move. If he tries to grab you, pulling away and running is the way to go. In any case, if Zimmerman is telling the truth, or if he's not and he did in fact confront Martin in some way, Martin's response far exceeded any reasonable, lawful use of force to protect himself from the level of threat he may have believed he faced.
That idea of necessary, and only necessary, use of force is the key. It's not necessarily the guy who sets a sequence of events into motion who bears legal responsibility for any unfortunate or tragic consequences, but the guy who escalates the situation by responding overly aggressively to the other guy's actions.
By the way, take a look at the hypothetical example where Guy A takes a swing at Guy B, then runs away when Guy B punches back, and Guy B chases him down and continues the fight. In that case, Guy A may lawfully use whatever force is necessary to defend himself against what has become Guy B's aggression. The fact that he started the fight is no longer the issue. Instead, the issue has become Guy B's overly aggressive response to Guy A's actions.
And that is the case even though Guy A's first swing at Guy B was illegal, maybe not the crime of the century but still illegal. Even when Guy B is threatened by some illegal act on Guy A's part, the law still requires Guy B to limit his use of force to the force necessary to defend himself.
And Zimmerman did not even do anything illegal by following Martin (and the police dispatcher's statement that "We don't need you to do that" does not carry the force of law). There is nothing illegal about shadowing a suspicious person in your neighborhood while you're on the phone to the police asking them to send someone to check the guy out. By law, it was Martin's overly aggressive response to Zimmerman's actions, not Zimmerman's lawful attempt to keep an eye on Martin, that is central to this case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NLVgal
I hope they plead it down to manslaughter or something and we don't have to hear about it anymore. It's just sad all the way around.
The problem here is that Zimmerman might be telling the truth. He might be innocent of any wrongdoing according to law. Even if he's lying, and if somehow he did violate some law, without the evidence to prove this beyond a reasonable doubt, the law requires that he be acquitted, and we all face the danger of losing a basic right if it becomes the norm to convict people without such due process in cases where there's public sentiment against them. This being the case, if Zimmerman is punished in any way, even as a result of a plea to a lesser charge, there's a serious problem related to the legal rights we all are supposed to enjoy.
Agreed with the last point, though. It is a sad situation all the way around.
^^ I don't think there is enough evidence to convict him from what I've read. I'm a student of human nature and a very logical person, so my post was my opinion of what went down. If I was on a jury, I would never convict based on theory or opinion (at least I hope I wouldn't)
Here are the known facts: Zimmerman was carrying and found Martin suspicious enough to call the cops (for whatever reason). Zimmerman was told by law enforcement that they didn't want him to pursue. Martin is dead and Zimmerman pulled the trigger.
The rest is all pure speculation because none of us were there. I think Zimmerman is an idiot, but that is not illegal.
(Martin was probably an idiot too, most boys that age are)
I don't feel picked on, Ogre. Debate is a good thing and you were quite respectful.
This case has taken on ugly overtones. Very ugly overtones. I don't like it. I think it has the propensity to be so blown out of proportion that it could end up evoking the law of unintended consequences.
This case needs to be over already and get this man permanently off the streets. I don't feel comfortable with hoodlums of any background on the street, and Zimmerman is a hoodlum. He went out with a gun looking for confrontation, knowing that he could shoot someone if things weren't going well for him. The young man defended himself and Zimmerman killed him. A clear message needs to be sent. People like that don't need to be on the streets...not at all.
Not quite, becuase I was more sympathetic to Goetz, than I am to Zim. Zim is no doubt a vigilante, racist, "Cop Wanna Be". I have no doubt of this. But, he is tried of punks in his neighborhood, getting away with theft.
Zim decided to do a neighborhood patrol, on his own. That should be applauded. If I lived there, I would feel safer that Zim was out patrolling, but I am a white female, not a young black male.
Awhile ago, I was at an inner city neighborhood, where white women are not usually seen, ever, a nice group of young black men came over to me, and helped me find the guy I was looking for. They knew I did not "belong". They were funny, they were saying things to me, "don't you know this is a bad area?, what are you doing here?"I told them I was visiting a patient, and they were mad at my employer..."Don't they know better to not send white nurses around here?!". I was not in danger, at my age, I am the age of their Grandma's, they were very respectful to me.
Too bad, Zim did not greet Trayvon, and ask if he was lost. There might have been a better outcome. I think the problem here, was the gun, and Zim's attitude.
Where are we on people, in our society who walk around with guns? People who are a bit unbalanced? That is an issue. Society needs to be safe, for all people, everywhere.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
