George Zimmerman found not guilty

[Orpheus]

its definitely about race


hmmm i wonder who used the only racial slur and it was entered into evidence

He said "creepy ass cracker" while Zimmerman was essentially stalking him, in a vehicle and on foot. If you honestly think cracker is a racial slur on par with the n-word, then I guess you could find that objectionable. I don't think the two are close, personally.

[lvc]

I think the real travesty is that the law in Florida is written in such a way that the guilt could only be judged at the moment of the shot, in which case there is reasonable doubt that George Zimmerman was losing a fight and could legally argue he feared for his life.

A reasonable amount of justice could be extracted still if this whole debacle would initiate a successful movement to alter the self defense law in Florida to preclude cases where the entire altercation stemmed from actions of the accused (e.g. since George Zimmerman was the only reason these two fellas ever even said boo to each other, he can't claim self defense). Otherwise, it is just senseless.

[lvc]

Fun fact about cracker: the term actually originated as slang for cattle ranchers in Florida, who would crack whips to herd their stock. So, historically speaking, Trayvon Martin, thinking Zimmerman were a paler shade, wouldn't be racist at all in calling him a cracker. He was just well-read on his state's linguistic history and influence.

[Orpheus]

I completely agree with your post re: the laws involved. Another thing that's bothered me is that Martin's possible fear for his own life is mostly trivialized.

[doug rr]

serious question: Is Zimmerman white?

[---]

.

[---]

.

[Orpheus]

Zimmerman was essentially stalking him

How much of the trial and testimony did you watch? Have you read any of the forensic evidence?

I've read play-by-play from the trial. What would you describe it as?

[Peeps]

Fun fact about cracker: the term actually originated as slang for cattle ranchers in Florida, who would crack whips to herd their stock. So, historically speaking, Trayvon Martin, thinking Zimmerman were a paler shade, wouldn't be racist at all in calling him a cracker. He was just well-read on his state's linguistic history and influence.

I was told it actually stemmed from the slave ships and th kind gentleman who would crack the whips. Mind you this wa old to me be a man of African decent who I consider somewhat knowledgeable in his history


seems both have validity

[simple schoolboy]

I was of the understanding that he was being tried for manslaughter in the alternative and that he was found not guilty of that too. That certainly wouldn't have been the case in many jurisdictions but it was here as a result of the peculiar nature of the Florida provisions concerning self-defence.

Your understanding is exactly correct.

Not so much. Stand your ground wasn't relevant. The prosecution and defense are on record saying it wasn't a factor. Despite the New York Times and others repeating it over and over, it has very little to do with this case. Some states such as New York make it very difficult to establish a self defense claim but most have standards more similar to Florida outside of the stand your ground and castle doctrines.

Spenno never mentioned SYG.

What other peculiarities do you refer to? Is the standard for self defense not 'serious bodily injury or death'? Perhaps I'm beating this drum unnecessarily but the NYT has insisted that this is a case of SYG gone wrong well after that is patentely not the case. Its as if they wanted an example of Florida's law in action to point to...

[Birds in Hell]

I was of the understanding that he was being tried for manslaughter in the alternative and that he was found not guilty of that too. That certainly wouldn't have been the case in many jurisdictions but it was here as a result of the peculiar nature of the Florida provisions concerning self-defence.

Your understanding is exactly correct.

Not so much. Stand your ground wasn't relevant. The prosecution and defense are on record saying it wasn't a factor. Despite the New York Times and others repeating it over and over, it has very little to do with this case. Some states such as New York make it very difficult to establish a self defense claim but most have standards more similar to Florida outside of the stand your ground and castle doctrines.

Spenno never mentioned SYG.

What other peculiarities do you refer to? Is the standard for self defense not 'serious bodily injury or death'? Perhaps I'm beating this drum unnecessarily but the NYT has insisted that this is a case of SYG gone wrong well after that is patentely not the case. Its as if they wanted an example of Florida's law in action to point to...

I answered this on the previous page somewhere.

[simple schoolboy]

I was of the understanding that he was being tried for manslaughter in the alternative and that he was found not guilty of that too. That certainly wouldn't have been the case in many jurisdictions but it was here as a result of the peculiar nature of the Florida provisions concerning self-defence.

Your understanding is exactly correct.

Not so much. Stand your ground wasn't relevant. The prosecution and defense are on record saying it wasn't a factor. Despite the New York Times and others repeating it over and over, it has very little to do with this case. Some states such as New York make it very difficult to establish a self defense claim but most have standards more similar to Florida outside of the stand your ground and castle doctrines.

Spenno never mentioned SYG.

What other peculiarities do you refer to? Is the standard for self defense not 'serious bodily injury or death'? Perhaps I'm beating this drum unnecessarily but the NYT has insisted that this is a case of SYG gone wrong well after that is patentely not the case. Its as if they wanted an example of Florida's law in action to point to...

I answered this on the previous page somewhere.

Apparently I responded to a claim you did not make and for that I appologize. (re:SYG) I'm not really sure how porportionality factors in when your choices are either: continue to be pummeled in the face until serious damage is done or shoot your assailant. Some here and elsewhere feel that the first is the only appropriate option. I contend that a duty to accept repeated punches to the face while prone is not a feature of any desireable sociey.

[Birds in Hell]

I'm not really sure how porportionality factors in when your choices are either: continue to be pummeled in the face until serious damage is done or shoot your assailant.

To me, that's a blatant false dichotomy. This doubtlessly reflects my own biases but I don't feel that shooting an assailant dead is a reasonable action in these particular circumstances (nor do I feel it was Zimmerman's only option.) There's no question, for the sake of contrast, that it would fail a proportionality test for self-defence in Australia for that reason (though I know that's something of a banal observation as we're talking about different cultures, different laws, etc.)

I don't think it's murder but, in many other jurisdictions, it would have been relatively easy to convict him of manslaughter. I'm no expert on US law, but I do think a similar proportionality test for claims of self-defence operates in some US states - I guess Zimmerman was just lucky this happened in Florida.

[simple schoolboy]

I'm not really sure how porportionality factors in when your choices are either: continue to be pummeled in the face until serious damage is done or shoot your assailant.

To me, that's a blatant false dichotomy. This doubtlessly reflects my own cultural background but I don't feel that shooting an assailant dead is a reasonable action in these particular circumstances (nor do I feel it was Zimmerman's only option.) There's no question, for the sake of contrast, that it would fail a proportionality test for self-defence in Australia for that reason (though I know that's something of a banal observation as we're talking about different cultures, different laws, etc.)

I don't think it's murder but, in many other jurisdictions, it would have been relatively easy to convict him of manslaughter. I'm no expert on US law, but I do think a similar proportionality test for claims of self-defence operates in some US states - I guess Zimmerman was just lucky this happened in Florida.

I believe I mentioned previously, New York and other states make it more difficult for the defendant to claim self defense. As far as I'm aware even there proportionality doesn't factor in, just the burden of proof is shifted more towards the defendant than other jurisdictions. If we accept the facts we have, Martin was on top of Zimmerman, hitting him in the face repeatedly, (presumably) up until the point he was shot. Now, that last point is important, because if there was a reprieve he was no longer justified in using deadly force, but considering all his pleas for help were for nought, what were his other options?

[simple schoolboy]

As an aside, I'm really only familiar with proportionality from an international law sense where it is forever invoked against Israel whenever they are unwisely poked by Hamas or Hezbollah and are accused of responding 'disproportionately'. So yeah, not too much of a fan of that as it demands far too much of the defendant: 'You are guilty of responding with a punch of 5N greater than that of your aggressor.'

[Birds in Hell]

If we accept the facts we have, Martin was on top of Zimmerman, hitting him in the face repeatedly, (presumably) up until the point he was shot. Now, that last point is important, because if there was a reprieve he was no longer justified in using deadly force, but considering all his pleas for help were for nought, what were his other options?

Kick him in the nuts? Punch him in the face?

In respect to proportionality, here's the wording of the relevant legislation in South Australia:

CRIMINAL LAW CONSOLIDATION ACT 1935 - SECT 15

(1) It is a defence to a charge of an offence if—

(a) the defendant genuinely believed the conduct to which the charge relates to be necessary and reasonable for a defensive purpose; and

(b) the conduct was, in the circumstances as the defendant genuinely believed them to be, reasonably proportionate to the threat that the defendant genuinely believed to exist.

Though I'll readily admit I have no practical experience in criminal law, my understanding of the proportionality requirement is that it's a subjective test (ie. was it a reasonably proportionate response in the accused's mind?) and also generally interpreted as being a response of roughly equivalent force.

Shooting a guy dead for punching you in the head would, on my admittedly inexpert opinion, fail the test (depending on the circumstances) and the defence would fall over. Really, I imagine virtually any physical action (punching, kicking, biting, etc.) would satisfy such a test in these circumstances (were it to have happened here, obviously.)

[Birds in Hell]

Of course, in the absence of such a restriction to a claim of self-defence, I think the court made the correct decision (again, based on the limited amount I know.)

[broken iris]

Ugh. Stupid people. Looting and grabbing TVs from your local WalMart because you are upset about the verdict only re-enforces the prejudice that lead to Zimmerman getting out of his car that awful night.

[Peeps]

Ugh. Stupid people. Looting and grabbing TVs from your local WalMart because you are upset about the verdict only re-enforces the prejudice that lead to Zimmerman getting out of his car that awful night.

i completely agree


as far as kicking him in the nuts or face as spenno previously suggested. that is kind of hard to do when youre on your back getting your head slammed into the ground

[4/5]

So white people are pretty happy about this, eh?