I say yes, you say no, OR People are Strange

Belinda44

River_Rat

Belinda, I remember both of those cases. I couldn't believe that juries could reach those decisions. 

crazy4carrots

Re the Zimmerman trial:  According to the Defence,the "Stand your Ground" law seems only to work one way.  Didn't Martin have the same right to stand his ground in the face of being stalked by Zimmerman?  This law seems to make a travesty of the judicial system, but no doubt the NRA folks are happy about all the publicity -- the sales of guns have already increased, because, after all, it's obviously not safe to go a couple of blocks to the corner store and back, "armed" only with a bag of Skittles and a can of iced tea.

Anonymous

River rat = will keep an eye out for it - I LOVED the video.

I have a slightly "different" take on the trial - why aren't the people who HIRED that armed man to patrol their private property held liable for his action too, implying he was EXPECTED to be "suspicious" of anyone who might not "belong" in their (was it gated?) community - he was HIRED to be suspicious and "protect" that neighborhood.  Terrifying....

crazy4carrots

Ah...Zimmerman was a Neighbourhood Watch volunteer (not hired) and when he called in (911) to report a "suspicious" person in the neighbourhood (his judgement) he was told that he did not need to follow him.  But, he did anyway.  

bluedahlia

bluedahlia

QuinnCat

Poor Trayvon Martin. For all he knew, George Zimmerman was out to rob him, rape him or just plain kill him.  I don't care if the soft pudgy man GZ "felt" his life was in danger, if that is even true, he should have stayed in his vehicle and let the professionals do their job:  Harrassing a young black man minding his own business.  If he is deemed "not guilty" because of the evidence and/or the law, the law needs to be changed.  And while a "Stand Your Ground" defense was never made, the law appears, in word, on the jury instructions, though that is probably just proof that the law is redundent of Justifiable Homicide.

My brother was involved in a Justifiable Homicide.  In some ways very similar to Zimmerman and Trayvon.  My brother, the late 20's white male, and the ultimate victim-- a teenaged African American male. The difference is that my brother was minding his own business, first robbed, then beaten with a cane, then shot at 3 times (and miraculously, his metal tennis racket took all 3 bullets) before my brother, on his back, got the gun away from the young man - who was high on drugs - and took one fatal shot (he said he thought it must have been shooting blanks since he took on 3 shots at close range).  My brothers life was actually threatened, and my brother was NOT stalking the perp and he had already been victimized (robbery and shot at) by the perp.  That is Justifiable Homicide.

Trayvon is the only victim in this story and it just hurts that a young innocent boy had to die.

Anonymous

c4c - yuck.  I thought he was hired, even WORSE, somehow, he just took it upon him self  to become a Neighborhood Kill, ooooppppsss...I meant watch, of course.  Too upsetting - I'd rather just sit & watch it rain than think of the world like that....notice I'm having to become more and more of an expert at DeNile to continue living in this world...I also avoid most media now too...never did have cable tv...

Kam - what a terrifying experience for your bother - hope he's ok now...

bluedahlia

bluedahlia

lassie11

A man shot and killed a boy who was walking home with his candy and iced tea.  It is hard to understand any world in which there is any excuse for that.

QuinnCat

Yes, apparently you just have to go after someone with a gun, antagonize them, draw them into a fight, shoot them, and it's AOK with some.

My brother is ok Sunny; lucky I think.  He was a competitive tennis player, so Wilson Sports gave him a metal raquet prototype (1970's).  It saved his life, taking all 3 bullets.

RetiredLibby

Here's the crux of it in my opinion - Zimmerman instigated the confrontation. Trayvon Martin was minding his own business, walking home after getting a snack. He did not provoke Zimmerman, he did not say anything to him, he didn't even know Zimmerman was there until Zimmerman started following him. Travyon Martin, a BOY, barely 17 years old, was stalked by an GROWN MAN ARMED WITH A GUN, after police told him to stand down. Zimmerman brought the confrontation to Travyon Martin. He started it. He weighed 50 pounds more than Trayvon, who at 17 hadn't even stopped growing.



If Zimmerman had been a black man and Trayvon a white boy under the exact same circumstances, Zimmerman would have been executed by now, if he had even made it to jail alive and not have been shot by police when they arrived at the scene. There would have been breathless, shrieking headlines about armed black men stalking white children.



Zimmerman instigated the incident. He initiated the confrontation. I don't think he intended at the outset to kill Trayvon, but he took a series of actions that resulted in the boy's death and he should be accountable. I think manslaughter (probably man-1 if they have that in Florida) is an appropriate verdict.



L

IllinoisLady

RL....I agree pretty much with you.  From the minute ( and that was months ago ) I heard the part about the police telling Z to do nothing and they would take it from there.....I felt that Z brought on every thing that happened after that.  Z also has told a couple of whoppers as well like having to be outside of his car because he did not know the street name....I'm told there were only three inter-woven type streets......so Z did not have to even concern himself.  I too was hoping for the strongest manslaughter sentence that could be given. 

Had a great day today.  Went to a cousin's barbecue.  Met a brand new Bassett Hound puppy.  She was a very sweet little thing....tottering around on those little sturdy, but still a bit wobbly legs.  Just adorable with the puppy breath.  Hope tonight ( first night away from Mom and litter-mates goes good.  Not my worry though. 

Jackie

IllinoisLady

RetiredLibby

For shame. Zimmerman killed a boy who went out to get a snack and got away with it. I hope the universe metes out justice to him.



L

Belinda44

I read this in the comments section of an online NY Times article, and I couldn't agree more:

"It is OK to ignore a police dispatcher's clear instructions to stay in the car and not follow someone one thinks is suspicious, and then act in a way that provokes a confrontation with a young man doing no wrong, which ends with the young man's death. If Zimmerman hadn't been so paranoid and carrying a gun, if he hadn't followed Martin, that young man would have returned to his father's condo with his skittles and soda to watch a basketball game.

The rights of the deluded and prejudicial to carry guns and act with impunity apparently trumps the rights of an innocent minor civilian. What is happening in this country? All this religious piety and conservatism, and we are acting more inhumane than ever."

lassie11

OMG  What could the jury have been thinking? Zimmerman killed the boy. He said he did it. And that's somehow OK?! I hope there are appeals to be made.

crazy4carrots

lassie -- I think I read that an appeal of an aquittal is not possible.  However, a civil suit could be launched.

I just truly don't understand the Stand your Ground law.  Makes me very relieved that I'm not a snowbird; certainy would never feel safe in any state that has this law.

suzieq60

Get rid of the guns - simple

pupmom

I'm disgusted by Zimmerman's acquittal. But why am I surprised. This is the same place that let Casey Anthony walk. MoveOn.org has a petition asking Eric Holder to prosecute Zimmerman for violating Trayvon Martin's civil rights, i.e. the right to life. You can go to MoveOn.org if you want to sign. Ugh, what a travesty of judtice!

pupmom

alexandria58

An acquittal is final, but a civil rights case is still possible, and a civil trial is likely.  The problem in the criminal trial in my mind was that the encounter was focused on who threw the first blow.  The fact that Zimmerman pursued with a gun a young man for the sole reason that he was black should have been enough to convict.  But if your only focus is on the actual physical fight that ensued after Zimmerman decided to pursue Trayvon, who started what and whether in the midst of tht fight, Zimmerman was afraid for his life, then you run into the reasonable doubt standard.  I would expect a civil suit to be more successful, both by focusing on the actual cause of the "encounter" - Zimmerman's decision to pursue Trayvon - and because of the different standard of proof, preponderance of the evidence, i.e. the Martin family needs the jury to believe their story is more plausible than Zimmerman's by 51 percent.

BTW, if I were representing the Martin family I would definitely sue the private housing complex that allowed that man to roam its grounds with a gun, volunteer or not.

pupmom

Alexandria, I believe the Martins have gotten a settlement (around one million) from the housing complex.

The Martins definitely shoud pursue a civil suit against Zimmerman. One problem is that those jurors would probably come from the same pool as those who gave Zimmerman a get out of jail free card. Or maybe the jury would at least be state wide. I hope!

What do you think the odds are that Holder will charge GZ?

alexandria58

It's not just the jury pool - the standard of proof is important.  That why civil suits can win even if you can't get a criminal conviction.   The quality of the lawyering also matters. I also think the prosecution did a poor job, by not focusing on the fact that Zimmerman initiated this encounter by choosing to follow some kid, only because the kids was black, by not focusing on the race issue. The prosecution let the defense define the "encounter."

bluedahlia

That is so sad!  I won't be visiting Florida!

Onto my grands!

bluedahlia

pupmom

So cute blue!

I've boycotted Florida since they stole the 2000 presidential electon. My belief that FL is a corrupt cesspool just got reinforced.

bluedahlia