Like has been said by others, right verdict, wrong charge. My post is more on the assertion that race doesn't figure into what has happened.
[News] The Trayvon Martin Discussion Thread
- Thread starter Charlie Don't Surf
- Start date
fade
Staff member
The more I think through the scenario, the more confused I am about who was standing whose ground. If Martin had succeeded in delivering a fatal blow as Zimmerman was pulling his gun, would he have been standing his ground? He could claim he was merely defending himself at first, and had just managed to gain the upper hand when he saw the gun. Does he fail the test for standing his ground because he was on top? For all we know, he could've been at a disadvantage moments before. At what point does the stand your ground advantage shift from one to the other?
Here's a question for those of you who are fully supportive of Zimmerman - would you have been equally supportive of Martin had he killed Zimmerman? After all, Zimmerman followed him in his car, then got out to confront him. Maybe Martin felt in danger of his life. And while he could have run, well, Zimmerman had a gun (which Martin must have known about if he tried to grab it) and running could just mean getting shot in the back.
Wouldn't that mean Martin killing Zimmerman would have been just as legal as Zimmerman killing Martin?
Wouldn't that mean Martin killing Zimmerman would have been just as legal as Zimmerman killing Martin?
I'd love to get into a discussion about that aspect of it, but unfortunately there's so much conflicting information running around that I don't think we could be productive, since everyone has their own view of it.
I want to know who got close enough to throw a punch and who threw the punch.
Some say that Martin hid behind something, then jumped on Zimmerman while he was walking. Others seems to suggest that Martin knew Zimmerman had a gun prior to hitting him - implying that he felt his life was in danger and his best hope was to strike first.
But what is true? Who knows?
What I've learned from this incident only serves to reinforce what I would have normally done anyway:
1. Don't follow suspicious people. Report them if you feel a need to, then leave things alone.
2. Don't hit people. They might be carrying a gun, and might think that my weak punch is life threatening, enough that they must kill me to make me stop.
3. If I truly believe I have to kill someone to save myself or my family, I had better make sure they are dead. The living have a much better chance at getting their way in a trial.
As far as I'm concerned, and from what little actionable evidence we do have (mostly bodily injuries suffered by both), they were both wrong, they both did stupid things, and we, as a society, have to live with the fact that our law supports them unequally simply because one of them won the fight.
I want to know who got close enough to throw a punch and who threw the punch.
Some say that Martin hid behind something, then jumped on Zimmerman while he was walking. Others seems to suggest that Martin knew Zimmerman had a gun prior to hitting him - implying that he felt his life was in danger and his best hope was to strike first.
But what is true? Who knows?
What I've learned from this incident only serves to reinforce what I would have normally done anyway:
1. Don't follow suspicious people. Report them if you feel a need to, then leave things alone.
2. Don't hit people. They might be carrying a gun, and might think that my weak punch is life threatening, enough that they must kill me to make me stop.
3. If I truly believe I have to kill someone to save myself or my family, I had better make sure they are dead. The living have a much better chance at getting their way in a trial.
As far as I'm concerned, and from what little actionable evidence we do have (mostly bodily injuries suffered by both), they were both wrong, they both did stupid things, and we, as a society, have to live with the fact that our law supports them unequally simply because one of them won the fight.
Maybe, maybe not. I'd argue we may not have heard of it if the police had done their job properly. If one individual has killed another, they should arrest that guy and put him (or her) in jail while you investigate. Don't just take his word for it that it was self-defence.
Remember when this first hit the headlines it wasn't just "white guy kills black guy" it was "white guy kills black guy and the police are ignoring it"
GasBandit
Staff member
And then it became "media labels hispanic as white to gin up racial tension, ratings"
Out of curiosity, for those of you who believe true justice was not served, can you address any of the following:
Where was the failure? (evidence, laws, jury, judge, prosecution, defense, ... ?)
Is there something we can change about our laws, legal process, or elsewhere that might prevent this injustice from occurring again, either by preventing the crime in the first place, or by getting the right verdict next time?
If you choose to say, "get rid of racism" or something non-actionable, then I'll agree, generally, but I'm thinking more in terms of actions we can take that are useful and practical, rather than "world peace" wishes.
Where was the failure? (evidence, laws, jury, judge, prosecution, defense, ... ?)
Is there something we can change about our laws, legal process, or elsewhere that might prevent this injustice from occurring again, either by preventing the crime in the first place, or by getting the right verdict next time?
If you choose to say, "get rid of racism" or something non-actionable, then I'll agree, generally, but I'm thinking more in terms of actions we can take that are useful and practical, rather than "world peace" wishes.
stienman for me the injustice is that Zimmerman provoked that confrontation. He didn't just need to walk away - he could have just not elected to follow Martin, to not get out of his car and confront him. Essentially if you start it, stand your ground immediately becomes a non-issue and self-defence becomes a lot harder to claim.
We'll never know if Martin escalated that confrontation, but we do know Zimmerman initiated it, and at the end of it someone was dead. Zimmerman has to take some responsibility for that.
We'll never know if Martin escalated that confrontation, but we do know Zimmerman initiated it, and at the end of it someone was dead. Zimmerman has to take some responsibility for that.
POTD!
I think that the concept of an impartial jury is a pipe dream at best and criminal negligence at worst. In this day and age of instant online communication around the world, the only people who won't know anything about a high profile trial are those who willfully ignore it. I'm not sure those are the people we should be entrusting justice to.
I'm not sure, then, if the solution is to create a job position of professional juror, or for the prosecutions on higher profile case to do a significantly better job of vetting jurors, but as long as we fill juries full of ignorant, clueless individuals, we shouldn't be surprised when it turns out the juries can be swayed as easily as an ignorant, clueless individual.
I'm not sure, then, if the solution is to create a job position of professional juror, or for the prosecutions on higher profile case to do a significantly better job of vetting jurors, but as long as we fill juries full of ignorant, clueless individuals, we shouldn't be surprised when it turns out the juries can be swayed as easily as an ignorant, clueless individual.
You gotta admit, the only reason that has been the case for the past few seasons is because everyone keeps buying all the Texans stuff. Every store around here has Cowboys stuff, they can't keep the Texans stuff in stock.
While perhaps not entirely possible given the size of your country, a much-touted "solution" for this here in Belgium has been to adapt the laws, making jury duty international. Some very high profile cases would still be fairly heavily covered abroad, but most cases don't really make it to news media outside the country. Having Dutch and French people sit in juries over Belgians and vice versa would take a lot of the media disinformation out of the picture, as well as allow people with different sensitivities to chime in - some political things are more or less sensitive depending on how or where you live. (for example, in the Netherlands most racism is aimed more at people from Surinam and Morocco, while Belgian racism is more towards Moroccon and Turkish people. And Congolese. And anyone else darker than a tan
)
fade
Staff member
This is a tempting line of thought, but it's dangerously close to "she was asking for it by wearing that short skirt".
We already went there with "He was asking for it by wearing that hoodie."
Yep too bad she was trespassing, against a restraining order, in his house, left without physical incident, got in her car, retrieved a gun, reentered the house and shot at him and his two kids...
Racist.
Information you have now thanks to a recent update, but yep.
Actually I read it that day, but I just could not let it sit there.
I realize where this is going, and I guess I have to make it clear that I was being sarcastic, because I already know how this conversation goes with people who have set points of view. So yeah, it wasn't 100% serious, so let's just leave it at that.
I think the one actionable change they could make to prevent this from becoming such a circus in the future is to treat every defense death as a murder.
Arrest the person immediately as though it were a murder.
Process the crime scene as thou it were a murder.
Prosecute it as a murder.
Etc.
If it were truly defense, it's not a pleasant process for the victim to go through, but its small potatoes compared to the fact that they survived an incident they thought was going to kill them.
If the evidence points toward defense, lower the bail, but otherwise run through the trial as normal.
At minimum you avoid much public furor, and as a side benefit you settle things legally so the person knows they won't be hit with a surprise arrest twenty years down the road.
It's more costly, but someone died, and they deserve a vigorous prosecution of their death, even if they were completely in the wrong. Get it before a jury, and settle things.
Arrest the person immediately as though it were a murder.
Process the crime scene as thou it were a murder.
Prosecute it as a murder.
Etc.
If it were truly defense, it's not a pleasant process for the victim to go through, but its small potatoes compared to the fact that they survived an incident they thought was going to kill them.
If the evidence points toward defense, lower the bail, but otherwise run through the trial as normal.
At minimum you avoid much public furor, and as a side benefit you settle things legally so the person knows they won't be hit with a surprise arrest twenty years down the road.
It's more costly, but someone died, and they deserve a vigorous prosecution of their death, even if they were completely in the wrong. Get it before a jury, and settle things.
GasBandit
Staff member
I'll be damned if I willingly let myself be put through the wringer for shooting an intruder in my own home. That's a change I won't support at all.
In my opinion, it verges on wrongful/false arrest.
That is what happened in this case.
GasBandit
Staff member
If you're going to arrest me for murder (in the aforementioned scenario where I have shot a home invader), you'd better have damn good evidence already that it was NOT self defense, or I'm suing the shit out of you for false arrest, wrongful imprisonment, lost wages, anguish, etc etc etc. And I think there are a lot of people like me.
A death isn't automatically a murder, and to assume such infringes on our sancrosanct presumption of innocence.
The verdict in this case seems to uphold that the police weren't in the wrong when they let Zimmerman go, as it was self defense.
