Can someone explain this Zimmerman case to me?

Read the following article that was just posted this evening.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/14/zimmerman-trayvon-martin-nbc-news-column-rieder/2516251/?csp=fbfanpage

He was told not to approach him and to let the police do their job. But he followed him. Martin wouldn’t have died if Zimmerman had stayed put. This should have been an open and shut case.

A white person shot a black person in a Southern state; of course they got off!

Note the black woman that got 20 years for trying to defend herself from her abusive husband (Source)

That tells you something about Florida. Same prosecutor too…

This is a perfect case that shows the justice system needs an overhaul.

This article might be helpful. The short version is this:

George Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch coordinator for a gated community where Trayvon Martin was living at the time. One night, Zimmerman spotted Martin walking home and thought that Martin “did not belong” in the community and was “acting suspiciously.” Zimmerman started following Martin in his vehicle, while also calling the police to let them know about it. At one point, while still on the phone with the police, Zimmerman got out of his vehicle (against police advice) and started pursuing Martin on foot.

According to Zimmerman, Martin then assaulted him (we know from testimony that Martin had noticed Zimmerman followed him, thought him creepy, and apparently believed that he might have been under threat). There was a fight, and Martin was shot to death. The weapon was Zimmerman’s own, and I am not aware of any report that Zimmerman ever claimed that it belonged to Martin. Zimmerman initially invoked Florida state’s Stand Your Ground law, but claimed only a basic self-defense justification when it came time for trial. Martin was unarmed and was not doing anything illegal at the time.

@livelaughlove21 Thank you for asking the question, I’m on the same boat as you.

For those who know, can prosecution file for an appeal? If so, on what grounds?

@jordym84 No, Zimmerman was found not guilty. He can’t be tried again for these charges. However, he can be tried in a civil court. I’m not sure what charges he can be tried for there.

” now walking free because of politics ”

Your emotions are speaking here.

The state did not prove it’s case and that seems to be the legal consensus. What the Feds do is another matter and civil action is still on the table.

You are confusing fairness with justice. What happened seems very unfair, but is it just? Time will fully tell.

Best not to take ideological sides here; left or right. We are still a nation of law, not of ideology.

@Neodarwinian Maybe it’s emotional, but maybe it’s not. A lot of people believe that the state did not prove its case because it did not want to prove it’s case. They believe that the case only came to trial due to public outrage over the state attempting to let it go without a full investigation, and that this is why the District Attorney’s office charged Zimmerman with a crime for which they could not make a satisfactory argument. These are all debatable claims, of course, but there is at least some evidence to support them. As such, it is premature to judge any claim that politics was heavily involved in the outcome of this case on emotion.

Worth reading

I heard the verdict on the news yesterday morning and it shocked me. I can’t understand how he could have been allowed to walk free. Zimmerman approached a kid who was walking in the street and murdered him in cold blood. How can that be acceptable?

^^It’s complicated? No it isn’t.

I think this bit of satire sheds a little more light on things. At least I hope it;s satire…

@Neodarwinian You seem to think that we are all automatons who follow rules slavishly. The fact that you do not know the difference between a human and a machine scares and saddens me. This is Earth, not Vulcan. We do things a bit differently here.

The thing I can’t get over is the recorded scream for help. It makes no sense for Zimmerman to scream for help, pull the trigger and then immediately go silent. It makes 1000 times more sense for Martin to be the one screaming and then go silent when he’s killed. I’m also baffled that voice analysts weren’t allowed to testify. I would think we have the technology to run both Martin and Zimmerman’s respective voices against the recording to see if one was a better match.

Vigilante groups make only sense in defunct countries in which the authorities can’t maintain law and order. Vigilante groups are always just a suboptimal solution because the volunteers lack the formal training to behave properly in difficult situation. If vigilante groups with amateur patrols are tolerated in Florida, we have to expect that something like this is bound to happen. Zimmerman is not a trained police officer.

@gorillapaws, voice experts said it was Zimmerman’s voice and voice experts said it was Martin’s voice. Initially, both of Martin’s parents said it was NOT his voice screaming. They later changed their minds and said it was his voice. Witnesses on the scene who saw Martin being the aggressor said Martin was on top of Zimmerman and, again, according to court testimony from witnesses, it was Zimmerman, the man on the bottom being pounded, who was screaming for help.

There is no doubt that Zimmermann was the one with the gun and that Zimmermann approached Martin having been told not to by the police. I can’t imagine that his intentions were friendly. A few minutes later Martin was shot dead. To suggest that Martin was the aggressor is ludicrous.

@ SavoirFaire

” A lot of people believe ”

” These are all debatable claims ”

You said that right, and you also mentioned evidence to support these claims., evidence I did not see.

By the way, my position is the default position and the consensus is rather broad, so I need not support any claim..

So, what are you talking about?

I just want to know why the jury was only 6 women: 5 white and 1 hispanic.

That doesn’t seem like a large enough or diverse enough jury to make a decision on this type of matter. I mean diverse in both sex and race. I know nothing about law, or specifically Florida law, but I feel like that shouldn’t have been allowed. It doesn’t sound right.

We should keep in mind that this was the state that let Casey Anthony walk. At this point, it shouldn’t have come at a surprise. I’m upset at the result…..but not surprised. It’s Florida.

State statute or the rules of procedure determine how many jurors serve on a jury for a criminal case. In Florida, the number for a capital crime is 12 jurors; for all others the number is six. The 6th amendment to the US Constitution guarantees a jury of peers, but says nothing about the number of peers.

@flutherother, the police did not tell Zimmernam anything before the shooting.

@bkcunningham The 911 dispatcher told him, “we don’t need you to do that” when he indicated he was following Martin. He did it anyways.

@bkcunningham There is a transcript of Zimmerman’s call to the Sanford Police Department here

The person he spoke to wasn’t a police officer. @livelaughlove21 is correct. It was a dispatcher.

@cutiepi92 I was thinking the same thing when I saw the jury.

@Neodarwinian You seem to have missed the points I was actually making, which were (a) that one need not be having a purely emotional reaction to believe that politics was heavily involved here, and (b) your claims were not nearly as indisputable as you presented them as being. And while I did not present lengthy dissertations on the evidence one might use to dispute your claims, I did mention the sorts of things that one might use as evidence.

In any case, you seem to be suffering from an even larger misunderstanding of how logic works. You say that you do not need to support your claims because yours is supposedly the default and consensus position. But this is to commit the ad populum fallacy. There is no such thing as a default position in a rational debate. Anyone who makes a claim bears the burden of defending it proportionate to the degree to which they assert the claim.

@ SavoirFaire

” to believe that politics was heavily involved here ”

Obviously I missed nothing here. To believe?!?

” Anyone who makes a claim bears the burden of defending it proportionate to the degree to which they assert the claim. ”

I did not assert anything, I just read the legal consensus in many different media outlets and this is the default position. The state did not prove it’s case. Your baseless, and verbose, speculations do not interest me. and if you do not have the evidence to back them up not only are you appealing to emotion to a far away from a logical presentation.

Evidence for your first assertion, or we are through here as your speculation is beginning to bore me.

“Obviously I missed nothing here. To believe?!?”

The above response is literally nonsensical. In context, it means nothing. You responded to a single clause from a sentence and gave no indication of what your objection or question might be. If you are actually interested in a response, please resubmit your query in standard, comprehensible English.

“I did not assert anything”

You have asserted several things—three of which I will point out here, and two of which I have been trying to demonstrate are mistaken. The first comes from your first post to this thread:

“Your emotions are speaking here.”

This was said in response to something from the OP. You claimed—without argument—that @livelaughlove21 was being emotional. I claimed that her statement need not be construed as a mere outburst of emotion. There could be reasons for the belief that she expressed. Her reasons might be good, and her reasons might be bad. Nevertheless, she could have reasons rather than simply feelings. Do you deny that this is possible? If so, you owe us an argument. If not, then you must concede the point.

Another comes from the same post:

“The state did not prove it’s case and that seems to be the legal consensus.”

Strictly speaking, this sentences asserts two things. First, that the state did not prove its case. Second, that it is the legal consensus that the state did not prove its case. As you may have noticed, I have denied neither of these assertions. I, in fact, accept them both.

What I have denied is the further claim you made in your next post:

“My position is the default position and the consensus is rather broad, so I need not support any claim.”

There is no such thing as a default position in a rational debate. You have your view, others might have their own view. Neither starts off with a presumption of truth, regardless of how many people believe it, because that is not how rational debate works. Do you deny that this is true? If so, then you simply do not understand how rational debates work. If not, then you must concede the point.

Specifically, you seem to want me to speak on behalf of those who believe that the Zimmerman case only came to trial due to public outrage over the state attempting to let it go without a full investigation, and that this is why the District Attorney’s office charged Zimmerman with a crime for which they could not make a satisfactory argument. If so, you are making demands that I never took it upon myself to satisfy. I addressed you only to challenge the presumption underlying your ad hominem response to @livelaughlove21.

Nevertheless, I will explain what I take to be behind some people’s beliefs. Let us note in advance that I am not here taking any stand on whether these reasons are good reasons or bad reasons. It is not my intention on this thread to adjudicate such matters. I joined this discussion to do what the OP asked of us: to explain. As such, I will explain to you what some have argued.

Regarding the claim that the Zimmerman case only came to trial due to public outrage, it has been noted that law enforcement waited 46 days to arrest Zimmerman, and only did so after the story went viral. Moreover, the lead detective for the case claimed to have been pressured into applying for an arrest warrant. The police originally planned to let the case drop, but then started pursuing it again after there were protests over the lack of an arrest.

Regarding the claim that the state overcharged Zimmerman, some have pointed out that the lead detective in the case recommended only a charge of negligent manslaughter. Yet the state originally charged for murder in the second degree; and though it later added a lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter, this is still above what was recommended based on the available evidence.

There are other possible reasons for thinking politics was involved in the case. It has been argued, for instance, that the prosecution was rather apathetic about serving the state’s interests. Instead of writing it all out for you, here is a link to one newspaper’s summary of the case that could made for prosecutorial apathy.

If you want more information than this, I will have to refer you to either Google or someone who is actually interested in defending or elaborating on these claims.

He went looking for provocation. Even if wanted to just follow him why did he need to get close enough to make Martin feel threatened? It can’t be self defence if you provoke a fight. No brainer.

Why did he not take the stand?

Fifth Amendment.

@bkcunningham I wasn’t asking for the Amendment that allows him to not take the stand.

I thought you were asking why he didn’t take the stand. He didn’t take it because the law says he doesn’t have to take the stand. His lawyers most likely told him not to take the stand. It is rare that it benefits a defendant. They don’t get to just tell what happened. They have to be cross examined and it can be a disaster for a defendant.

A disaster for the defendant who is guilty, equals to justice served, which is the whole idea.

What? A defendant who is guilty? That is putting the cart before the horse, @flo.

If you are guilty of something it should be a disaster for you, so justice can be served. Yes or no? @bkcunningham

There is another side to the question, @flo. If you are innocent…

But, to answer on the assumption that if I’m guilty I’m not going to testify because it will be a disaster. Not necessarily. It would depend on how good a liar I am and many other factors including how strong the case is against me.

@bkcunningham it should be a disaster for the guilty.