Open Thread on Zimmerman Verdict

[SamH]

For starters, why don’t find someone who is asking that question?

See post 444.

 

[Yerusalyim]

Couple of questions as an outsider from Canada:

If Martin had killed Zimmerman could he have used the SYG rules as a defence?

Wasn’t Martin standing his ground when Zimmerman approached/attacked/interacted with him?

How could Zimmerman use the SYG law when he was the one who approached/followed/stalked Martin in the first place?

you presume Zimmerman approached/confronted/attacked Martin…the facts simply do not support that notion. Zimmermans story is that he was attacked by Martin…following someone is NOT against the law…hitting them is.

 

[Neofight]

Why don’t we turn this thread in the direction all things should be directed…towards our Lord, and his teachings on love.

Instead of getting wrapped up in the worldly issues , lets pray for the repose of the soul of Mr. Martin and the comfort and healing of those who knew and loved him, and for Mr. Zimmerman that he and his family may find peace.

Lord have mercy.
Christ have mercy.
Lord have mercy.

Peace and all good!

 

[KrazyKat]

Honestly you are merely expressing what appears to be a completely uninformed opinion. Your right of course but don’t think it’s particularly compelling. There are several threads on the subject, the information and evidence has been reviewed repeatedly. Nothing backs up what you are claiming.

Lisa

…and I also give you my permission to have an opinion.

Our God is an Awesome God.

 

[BroomWagon]

See post 444.

self-de·fense
[self-di-fens, self-] Show IPA
noun
1.the act of defending one’s person when physically attacked, as by countering blows or overcoming an assailant: the art of self-defense.
2. a claim or plea that the use of force or injuring or killing another was necessary in defending one’s own person from physical attack: He shot the man who was trying to stab him and pleaded self-defense at the murder trial.
3. an act or instance of defending or protecting one’s own interests, property, ideas, etc., as by argument or strategy.
Also, especially British, self-de·fence.

dictionary.reference.com/browse/Self-defense

Still, one can say the Prosecution did not build a substantial case for Conviction of Murder. The Defense may use Self-Defense but I don’t believe that is mentioned in the verdict.

 

[Yerusalyim]

What “oversized”? Autopsy said he was 5ft 10. Never had to happen if Z had stayed in his car and waited for police. No had to be a super hero.

Never would have happened if Martin didn’t swing on Zimmerman…

 

[LisaA]

…and I also give you my permission to have an opinion.

Our God is an Awesome God.

When making an argument I prefer to state facts. But you are entitled to believe your opinion is the equivalent

I think that Zimmerman has an excellent case against NBC particularly. I wouldn’t be too worried about a DOJ review of the violation of Martin’s civil rights. I doubt if there is a right to beat someone who’s annoying you.

I heard an interesting take by a Liberal Civil Rights attorney who said those criticizing the verdict are exhibiting blatant disrespect for the WOMEN on the jury by claiming that their review and resultant verdict should be nullified. She said that was a violation of their civil rights more than any perceived violation of the rights of Martin.

Alan Dershowitz said bringing this case at all was a gross demonstration of prosecutorial incompetence.

The defense rests.

Lsia

 

[Yerusalyim]

But 911 operator said stay in the car.

first…it was not 911…second…she did NOT say “stay in your car” she said “we don’t need you to do that” it was not a legal command. But all indications are that from that point Zimmerman did NOT follow Martin and tha t he was headed back to his car when Martin confronted Zimerman.

 

[LisaA]

One can say the Prosecution did not put up a good case to begin with which many analysts say.

No they didn’t HAVE a good case. Even silver tongued attorneys can’t spin straw into gold. Have you ever heard about effective legal representation?

If the facts don’t support your case, argue the law.
If the law doesn’t support your case, argue the facts.
If neither support your case, pound on the table!

That’s all the prosecution could do, pound on the table. They HAD no case to begin with. The prosecutor over charged and apparently has a reputation for doing so. There was no Grand Jury finding in this case which may have allowed it to be dismissed without trial.

There was no case. There was a dead young man and people wanted retribution. This reminds me a lot of medical malpractice. If a patient has a bad result, sometimes he/she or the family wants to sue. SOMEONE MUST BE ACCOUNTABLE. But the law is not that no one should have a bad result or that treatment should always work, but that doctors are held to a particular standard of care. If the doctor exhibited the standard of care, then he/she is not liable even if the patient dies. Somehow that seems hard to get through to people. They are upset and want “someone” to pay even if the reality is that bad things happen.

Lisa

 

[Yerusalyim]

But what suspicion did Z have of wrongdoing if it wasn’t race based? I will shut up if someone will answer that for me. I promise.

A person not recognized as living in the neighborhood is out in the rain standing in yards and walking slowly…in a neighborhood that had been burglarized quite a bit recently…that is suspicious…regardless of race.

 

[BroomWagon]

No they didn’t HAVE a good case. Even silver tongued attorneys can’t spin straw into gold. Have you ever heard about effective legal representation?

If the facts don’t support your case, argue the law.
If the law doesn’t support your case, argue the facts.
If neither support your case, pound on the table!

That’s all the prosecution could do, pound on the table. They HAD no case to begin with. The prosecutor over charged and apparently has a reputation for doing so. There was no Grand Jury finding in this case which may have allowed it to be dismissed without trial.

There was no case. There was a dead young man and people wanted retribution. This reminds me a lot of medical malpractice. If a patient has a bad result, sometimes he/she or the family wants to sue. SOMEONE MUST BE ACCOUNTABLE. But the law is not that no one should have a bad result or that treatment should always work, but that doctors are held to a particular standard of care. If the doctor exhibited the standard of care, then he/she is not liable even if the patient dies. Somehow that seems hard to get through to people. They are upset and want “someone” to pay even if the reality is that bad things happen.

Lisa

We got on a tangent as to whether the trial found Trayvon of being “foolish and violent”, I would contend the Jury only finds George Zimmerman not guilty of murder or other chages.

Sam H. does bring up a good point as to whether if one uses self-defense, does that automatically mean the attacker is violent and even in this, there could be exceptions, someone is hunting, firing at a deer, one is in the way, the attack is inadvertent, the attacker is not really being violent to the person attacked. Anyway, this is a bit of a tangent but in the end, the Jury makes no finding as to Trayvon being violent or foolish, only that George Zimmerman is “not guilty”.

If we are arguing that someone is “violent”, then we are bringing in a sort of psychological evaluation of the trial. And then, one would wonder if even if one was acting in self-defense, are they in a sense being violent too if they discharge a pistol. They are defending themselves but in some people’s views, would still be acting violently.

So, I would again surmise, the Jury did not make this kind of finding even if the case is self-defense. Perhaps one could say the Defense is making this kind of case. But as I said, this is a bit of a tangent.

 

[Yerusalyim]

^ this.

Besides, “looking in people’s windows” is not an excuse to be shot, especially not by a man specifically told by a dispatcher to not get anywhere near the kid.

Zimmerman was NOT “specifically told by a dispatcher to not get anywhere near the kid” no such thing was said.

 

[Tomdstone]

Please get some facts. SYG had nothing to do with this case. The evidence presented did not indicate Zimmerman was stalking Martin. The evidence did not indicate that Zimmerman instigated the fight. In fact the evidence indicated that Martin escalated the encounter by confronting Zimmerman.

Lisa

But do you have to kill someone who is confronting you? If you have to shoot, can’t you just shoot him in the foot?

 

[Yerusalyim]

If someone is being followed they can duck on my porch anytime
Zimmerman has absolutely no authority to decide if someone is trying to “get out of the rain” or is suspect.

Zimmerman had every right to decide someone looked or acted suspicious.

 

[adrift]

I did not say that.

A poster said that, I did not.

But you asserted the Jury asserted that Travyon was violent and foolish but that is false. So you don’t have a source. Thank you.

post 414 you asserted that the defense said the Travyon was violent and foolish. I gave you a source. I was you since you said the defense said it than the jury must agreed because they found it self-defense.

Your welcome!

 

[LisaA]

We got on a tangent as to whether the trial found Trayvon of being “foolish and violent”, I would contend the Jury only finds George Zimmerman not guilty of murder or other chages.

Sam H. does bring up a good point as to whether if one uses self-defense, does that automatically mean the attacker is violent and even in this, there could be exceptions, someone is hunting, firing at a deer, one is in the way, the attack is inadvertent, the attacker is not really being violent to the person attacked. Anyway, this is a bit of a tangent but in the end, the Jury makes no finding as to Trayvon being violent or foolish, only that George Zimmerman is “not guilty”.

If we are arguing that someone is “violent”, then we are bringing in a sort of psychological evaluation of the trial. And then, one would wonder if even if one was acting in self-defense, are they in a sense being violent too if they discharge a pistol. They are defending themselves but in some people’s views, would still be acting violently.

So, I would again surmise, the Jury did not make this kind of finding even if the case is self-defense. Perhaps one could say the Defense is making this kind of case. But as I said, this is a bit of a tangent.

I think the whole “Martin was foolish” rabbit trail was a misinterpretation. One can conclude his behavior was foolish in that it ended in his death for no particular reason. In other words he didn’t die protecting himself or others. He died because his behavior first attracted Zimmerman’s attention and he responded aggressively, if not violently instead of leaving the scene, calling 911, or simply not confronting Zimmerman at all.

I don’t think the jury in any way concluded Martin was foolish but it stands to reason they felt his behavior was what led to his death…ergo we out here in the cheap seats can conclude it was foolish or lacking in judgment. I also don’t think anyone said that the jury found Martin guilty of foolishness…after all he wasn’t on trial. Seems like a bit of hair splitting.

My opinion is that Martin acted impulsively and without proper judgement. Is that foolish? I guess so.

Lisa

 

[MaryT777]

Zimmerman was NOT “specifically told by a dispatcher to not get anywhere near the kid” no such thing was said.

The dispatcher testified he can only say things like
We don’t need you to do that for liability reasons.

He meant don’t follow him…

The dispatcher never said go follow him at a safe distance,

so no those were not his exact words but you could make a case he did mean as such.

 

[MaryT777]

Zimmerman had every right to decide someone looked or acted suspicious.

Of course he did. No one disputes that.
I might imagine someone following me in their car is looking and acting like I am a suspect;
that’s exactly what Zimmerman used; suspect.

 

[maryjk]

The dispatcher testified he can only say things like
We don’t need you to do that for liability reasons.

He meant don’t follow him…

The dispatcher never said go follow him at a safe distance,

so no those were not his exact words but you could make a case he did mean as such.

To which Zimmerman was under no legal obligation to follow those instructions.

But he did anyway. Remember, he was returning to his vehicle.

 

[Saints_Alive]

A block watch volunteer call police on a suspicious looking person and then confronts the person ?

If that is what happened then Zimmerman created a problem that didn’t exist.