I believe it was five white women and one hispanic or black woman, Hazir.
Printable View
I believe it was five white women and one hispanic or black woman, Hazir.
6 women, 5 white and 1 Hispanic
edit: beaten.
That's not actually unusual in manslaughter/self-defense cases arising out of a physical altercation. Of course, that sort of situation is arguably why manslaughter exists as a criminal charge in our systems anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
It is my understanding that Zimmerman stalked and confronted Martin not the other way around.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Surely if anyone acted in self-defence it would be Martin, not Zimmerman?
Or can we have a situation whereby:
I stalk you
I confront you
I attack you
You have right to defend yourself as I attacked you.
Because you're defending yourself, I have right to defend myself
I kill you
I'm innocent because you were defending yourself therefore I defended myself.
I thought self-defence applied to those who were attacked, not those who attacked others.
That article pins quite a bit on mistakes such as a lax and sloppy initial investigation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Again, there was no evidence that Zimmerman attacked Martin. He may have confronted, but not attacked.
I believe Zimmerman's defense was that he was headed back to his truck when Martin attacked the creepy cracka.
Can't you just lock him up with some angry buttsex-loving black criminals until he confesses?
Please don't confuse me with Rand or Lewk.
I'm sorry, all y'all look alike and creepy :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Veldan Rath
You're right --- the outcome is a direct result of Florida law. Their legislature adopted SYG laws in mid '00s and changed the definition of "self-defense" with lower standards. Basically, any 'fear' of threat is deemed 'reasonable', and using lethal force with a firearm is automatically 'justifiable'. That legal language was inserted into other laws, including when police are required to make an arrest after a homicide. That's why Zimmerman went from the crime scene to the police dept. to his home. It also changed congressional mandates for jury instructions. That's why jury instructions included non-applicable things like "Accidental Homicide", and confusing definitions of Manslaughter. Self-Defense, as written, can be used as reasonable doubt in both charges.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
It was companion legislation: Concealed-carry of firearms and Self-Defense using a lethal weapon.
Good luck with that. Trayvon Martin reportedly tried to run. That just made him more "suspicious" in Zimmerman's mind. Adding insult to injury, FL law doesn't allow 17 year olds to carry a concealed gun....but they're not allowed to use their fists (or sidewalks) to defend themselves against strange men with guns.Quote:
For me the lesson is; if in Florida and somebody looks at you funny, you start running for your life.
The SYG principle was incorporated into definitions of 2nd degree murder and manslaughter charges, using the new definition of Self-Defense. No requirement to match use-of-force to perceived threat, and no requirement to retreat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Veldan Rath
Is there any evidence Martin attacked Zimmerman? I thought the evidence even in the 911 calls was that Martin tried to get away from Zimmerman and it was Zimmerman who sought the confrontation - to which Martin surely had a right to self-defence?Quote:
Originally Posted by Veldan Rath
GGT you're attacking a Straw Man. SYG laws weren't envoked during the trial. Just to my understanding regular old universal notion of self-defence. My worry is it seems a major loophole of self-defence to start a fight and then pretend the other one started it.
A bit of a "Wild West" stereotype if everyone has the right to self-defence and the dead be damned. :(
The defense team didn't need to invoke SYG during the trial. The principles of Self-Defense, as defined by SYG, were already incorporated and legislated into 2nd degree murder and manslaughter definitions....where Self-Defense has automatic immunity.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
If that's a Straw Man, it doesn't come from me, but the FL legislature.
Confrontation does NOT mean attack. It can be as simple as 'Hey you, what are you doing here?'Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
The evidence is that Zimmerman was getting pummeled. Martin was not.
I will concede it is possible that a mid sized 29 yr old may try to take on (start a fist fight) a younger, taller, stranger, way above his league because he was packing heat, but never drew his gun until his head was on the way to becoming street pizza, just not plausible.
Isn't that the problem with how SYG and Self-Defense laws are written, at least in Florida, that give the presumption of doubt to gun carriers.....at the expense of their victims?
Citation needed.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
in florida the SYG law is written so vaguely that police need specific evidence to refute a self defense claim in order to arrest someone claiming self defense. That is why he was initially not arrested.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
Exactly. Not only that, but FL police are required to give the 'benefit of doubt' to anyone who used lethal force, claiming Self-Defense, even if the person they shot...or killed....wasn't engaged in a felonious act.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
As far as I know he was initially taken into custody, but later released without being charged because the police believed his version of events. I think they probably believed his version of events because of his injuries, the fact that he was on the phone with the police before the confrontation, and that he was a known quantity to them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
What part of having your nose broken and your head beaten into the concrete wouldn't qualify legitimately as self-defense, or as a felonious act? Look, had Zimmerman shot Martin without any injuries what-so-ever I would be more inclined to think that there was something more insidious going on here, but I'm just not seeing it in the evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Doesn't matter. Prosecutor has to prove things beyond a reasonable doubt. If there isn't evidence that Zimmerman attacked Martin then doubts could well be reasonable.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
That's the way I understood it from the little I read. I imagine even a hostile reaction of Martin to Zimmerman's behaviour would have been enough to get the result we saw.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Nevertheless, I think that if the facts are remotely like I know them (Martin leaves store, Zimmerman has suspicions and calls the police, an altercation follows, which results in the death of Martin), legislation that lets Martin get off scott free is very very flawed legislation. Because no way you look at it takes away that Martin was just a teenager minding his own business. Zimmerman shouldn't have stuck his nose into that.
Okay, but the police don't have the same authority as judges, and private citizens don't have the same authority as police. Not even in gated communities with volunteer "Neighborhood Watch" programs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
What part of being a teenager walking home, followed and intimidated by a grown adult male, on a dark and rainy night, wouldn't qualify as fear of imminent danger? He apparently tried to walk fast, then run, and possibly hide, in an attempt to shake off the "creepy" man. That was met with Zimmerman continuing the 'hunt'...despite police telling him to stay in his car.Quote:
What part of having your nose broken and your head beaten into the concrete wouldn't qualify legitimately as self-defense, or as a felonious act? Look, had Zimmerman shot Martin and had not had a mark on him I would be more inclined to think that
How would you expect any teenager to defend themselves in that scenario?
How do you know Martin was intimidated by a grown adult male (that was smaller and shorter than he was)?
BTW: Creepy Cracka, not creepy man.
Did the police tell him to stay in his truck or: 'We don't need you to do that.'? (follow Martin)
What legislation is that? The defense didn't invoke stand your ground. Zimmerman won on the basis of self-defense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Because if someone is white they are automatically racist? /boggle It shouldn't matter the race or gender and as long as people think it should we will always be dealing with racism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
As mentioned, it's totally unclear who started it.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Zimmerman claimed he was heading back to his car, but who knows? The only real evidence was a witness who said he saw a guy on top of another guy, with the guy on the bottom being "pounded". And that this guy on the bottom happened to have an orange jacket, which is the same color jacket that Zimmerman was wearing that night.
Oh, and another forensic specialist who claims the bullet trajectory into Martin is consistent with a shot fired from someone underneath him.
Does anyone remember seeing if Zimmerman had hand injuries that suggested Martin was trying to wrestle a gun from his hands? Did Martin have substantial other injuries besides the lethal bullet?
Whatever Loki, legislation that absolves you from any responbility in the death of a person that was caused for no other reason than that you had to stick your nose into it is flawed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Maybe. No legislation is perfect. That's actually one of the reasons why our 6th amendment and most state constitutions have a jury-trial requirement, Madison et al wanted local human reasoning to interpret and potentially mitigate the workings of more centralized legislation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
And you say this after a case in which it would have been gross disregard for the law if the jury would have come to a different verdict?Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Let's not forget how this all started; it was Zimmerman being unhappy with the fact that another asshole was 'getting away with it' (buying skittles and a soda no less) that ended in Martin's death. If you, in such a case, have no option of punishing Zimmerman for unlawful killing another person, there is a big hole in that law through which no justice is seeping out.
By the way, I am not in favor of that campaign to open a federal case; I have little doubt that Zimmerman was engaging in racial profiling, that in itself however was not why the gun went off.
The self-defence law there that was actually used is the same (to my knowledge) self-defence laws that you and I have. SYG etc didn't come into play.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
The issue is the rather odd usage of self-defence given that he appeared to start it but there's no proof.
I heard an interview with one of the jurors this morning. She said she felt Zimmerman was guilty of nothing more than poor judgement. Uh. If a man's poor judgement directly causes an innocent's death, isn't that a rough definition of manslaughter?
I don't think so, Fuzzy may be better to answer.