Stand Your Ground law

[Libertad]

I think a major part of it is a poorly-worded "stand your ground" law.

Also, Florida's legal system is so fucked up that bestiality is legal due to a technicality.

[Demelain]

Zimmerman wasn't the aggressor. Following someone dressed like a thief and acting like a thief as the neighborhood watch captain isn't unreasonable, especially given the series of recent break-ins. Zimmerman's story tells it that he lost track of Martin and returned to his vehicle - where Martin followed HIM. Martin then initiated the physical altercation by striking George in the face. There was not any evidence presented which countered his story, and witnesses largely corroborated everything he said. If you want to insist the George is lying, feel free to do so - but you don't have a leg to stand on.
I'm personally happy over this. This is the justice system working as intended, and I'm glad to see that we're allowed to defend ourselves.

[altpersona]

alright, prior to the legislation then...



also, is eating eggs, collecting eggs, basically violating that law? at least if you enjoy it 

[Libertad]

If you want to insist the George is lying, feel free to do so - but you don't have a leg to stand on.

Well, there were inconsistencies in Zimmerman's story, which is reason for suspicion.

Such as the severity of his injuries, which aren't equivalent to being hit 25 times, or no bushes on a Google Earth map (above).


Other WTF News: Man throws semen on shoppers in Delaware.  This is not the first time he's done this.

[dman11235]

Zimmerman wasn't the aggressor. Following someone dressed like a thief and acting like a thief as the neighborhood watch captain isn't unreasonable, especially given the series of recent break-ins. Zimmerman's story tells it that he lost track of Martin and returned to his vehicle - where Martin followed HIM. Martin then initiated the physical altercation by striking George in the face. There was not any evidence presented which countered his story, and witnesses largely corroborated everything he said. If you want to insist the George is lying, feel free to do so - but you don't have a leg to stand on.
I'm personally happy over this. This is the justice system working as intended, and I'm glad to see that we're allowed to defend ourselves.

THat's the problem.  The burden of proof was not on him to prove that he was defending himself.  If it was, he would have been convicted.  Instead, Florida decided that burden of proof should be on the victim to prove that they weren't the aggressor.  Because a fact of the case is that Zimmerman shot him.  That's 100% true.  He killed someone.  And now he's walking free because the prosecution couldn't prove his not defending himself.  Not guilt, they could prove that, but they couldn't prove that he wasn't defending himself.  The defense didn't even have to prove that he was, they just had to make sure it couldn't be proven that he wasn't.  Essentially, Trayvon was guilty until proven innocent.  And again, Zimmerman did indeed shoot and kill Trayvon.  So he's still innocent until proven guilty, but he was proven guilty on that front.

As far as evidence goes, most of the evidence is either inconsequential (the marijuana stuff) or indicates no proof of Zimmerman being on defense at best, and proof that he was in the wrong at worst (call to 911 and ignores instructions to not follow, inconsistencies in his story about what happened, the phone call that was basically Trayvon being scared...not an aggressor, etc. etc.).  Basically, in Florida all you have to do to get away with murder (or in this case, probably manslaughter) is just not have it seen and claim self defense.

EDIT: Another major problem with this trial is that it was just full of character assassinations.  "Trayvon did pot!  That's gotta mean something right?  Oh look at his friend calling Zimmerman a racial slur!  That must mean he didn't like Zimmerman."  Character assassinations get in the way of justice.  Okay, so he did slur Zimmerman, so what?  That means nothing in the face of hard evidence.  Marijuana is notorious for making you chill, not making you attack like a monkey on PCP.  PCP does that.  And where as Zimmerman was around to defend assassinations on his character, where was Trayvon?  Oh yeah, dead because Zimmerman SHOT HIM.  Shot an unarmed boy when, if he followed instructions from actual police, there would not have been any confrontation, either started by him or by Trayvon.  When a police officer does that, as in, breaks regulation and something goes wrong, he gets in trouble.  IN Florida, when a civilian does that, apparently you get nothing.

[Demelain]

Because a fact of the case is that Zimmerman shot him.  That's 100% true.  He killed someone.  And now he's walking free because the prosecution couldn't prove his not defending himself.  Not guilt, they could prove that, but they couldn't prove that he wasn't defending himself.  The defense didn't even have to prove that he was, they just had to make sure it couldn't be proven that he wasn't.  Essentially, Trayvon was guilty until proven innocent.  And again, Zimmerman did indeed shoot and kill Trayvon.  So he's still innocent until proven guilty, but he was proven guilty on that front.

I don't know what you're on about. Evidence clearly pointed to Trayvon attacking Zimmerman, not the other way around. Zimmerman had a bloodied nose, gashes on the back of the skull, and dirt and grass covering his back. Trayvon has a single gunshot wound, and nothing else. There is absolutely nothing about this which point to anything but Trayvon attacking Zimmerman, and Zimmerman firing on Martin afterwards. Unless you think Zimmerman shot Trayvon, and THEN Trayvon hit George, knocked him down, and bashed his head on the sidewalk before finally expiring.

As far as evidence goes, most of the evidence is either inconsequential (the marijuana stuff) or indicates no proof of Zimmerman being on defense at best, and proof that he was in the wrong at worst (call to 911 and ignores instructions to not follow, inconsistencies in his story about what happened, the phone call that was basically Trayvon being scared...not an aggressor, etc. etc.).

911 dispatchers do not have any legal authority. They are not police officers, lawyers, doctors, or any other profession that gives you the right to dictate what anyone should or should not do. He was not instructed not to follow, he was told that they don't need him to follow. There is a significant difference.

Basically, in Florida all you have to do to get away with murder (or in this case, probably manslaughter) is just not have it seen and claim self defense.

Don't simplify this. That's ludicrous. There was plenty of evidence that Zimmerman was attacked first. If you walk up to someone and shoot them and claim self defense, you'll be found guilty of murder because you don't look like someone was beating the shit out of you.

Another major problem with this trial is that it was just full of character assassinations.  "Trayvon did pot!  That's gotta mean something right?  Oh look at his friend calling Zimmerman a racial slur!  That must mean he didn't like Zimmerman."  Character assassinations get in the way of justice.  Okay, so he did slur Zimmerman, so what?  That means nothing in the face of hard evidence.  Marijuana is notorious for making you chill, not making you attack like a monkey on PCP.  PCP does that.  And where as Zimmerman was around to defend assassinations on his character, where was Trayvon?  Oh yeah, dead because Zimmerman SHOT HIM.  Shot an unarmed boy when, if he followed instructions from actual police, there would not have been any confrontation, either started by him or by Trayvon.  When a police officer does that, as in, breaks regulation and something goes wrong, he gets in trouble.  IN Florida, when a civilian does that, apparently you get nothing.

I don't understand this. Unarmed =/= not-dangerous. You can kill people with your hands and the environment. Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman, and smashed his head against the sidewalk. That can kill you. That is reasonable fear for your life. That is grounds for self-defense.

And I'm sick of people calling Trayvon Martin "just a child" or "boy" or "kid". He was young, healthy, strong. If he was one year older he'd be an adult. Legally, "child" and "adult" are binary conditions. Physically they are not. Trayvon was as strong as, if not stronger than, George Zimmerman - whose martial arts trainer described as being incompetent at fighting.

[EjoThims]

There was plenty of evidence that Zimmerman was attacked first.

Does not matter. He instigated the confrontation. He was the initial aggressor. It is HIS fault that a conflict happened. And it is his fault that another human is dead.

That automatically puts him in an offensive position instead of one of defense.

The first blow is not the start of a fight. You don't get to antagonize and harass someone at a bar until they finally swing at you and then shoot them and claim you were only defending yourself.

Nor should you be allowed to stalk them, both in a vehicle and on foot, while carrying a gun (anyone with proper training knows guns are not for intimidation or wounding, they are for killing), against the advice of the people charged with coordinating government assistance to private citizens no less, and still claim self defense when you kill them because they had the audacity to perceive you as a threat.

With the logic this has established, I could break into someone's home and, if they had the gall to attack me, I could shoot them. And I may be arrested for breaking and entering and I may be charged with attempted robbery... But killing them was purely self defense.

[Demelain]

Does not matter. He instigated the confrontation. He was the initial aggressor. It is HIS fault that a conflict happened.

Except again, that's wrong. Zimmerman followed Trayvon, but lost sight of him and returned to his vehicle. Trayvon turned around and followed George back to his vehicle. Meaning the Trayvon instigated the conflict, because he could have just kept going home.

Nor should you be allowed to stalk them, both in a vehicle and on foot, while carrying a gun (anyone with proper training knows guns are not for intimidation or wounding, they are for killing), against the advice of the people charged with coordinating government assistance to private citizens no less, and still claim self defense when you kill them because they had the audacity to perceive you as a threat.

That's right. Guns are for killing. And it was used for its purpose, within the constraints of the law, and to reasonably protect himself from serious harm or death.

With the logic this has established, I could break into someone's home and, if they had the gall to attack me, I could shoot them. And I may be arrested for breaking and entering and I may be charged with attempted robbery... But killing them was purely self defense.

Nice straw man.
George didn't "break into someone's home" - he was on public property. Trayvon was not defending himself or his property. Trayvon did not attack a burglar, a belligerent drunk, or a verbally aggressive provocateur. Trayvon noticed someone was following him, lost his pursuer, turned around and followed his pursuer, confronted his pursuer, and physically assaulted his pursuer. If you're going to shit on Zimmerman for not letting the police handle it, then you've got to shit on Trayvon, too - because George followed Trayvon with the intent of making sure he was not breaking into a house. Trayvon followed George with the intent or knowledge that a physical altercation would results, lent credence by the fact that he began that altercation.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Stand Your Ground = Kill all the witnesses.

You can always claim self defense, and it's a lot harder to convict you when no one actually present is alive to contest your statements.  That's what happens when a legal system doesn't take the KILLER's statements with severe scrutiny and skepticism.

If the case taught us anything, its that making sure you're "roughed up a bit" (whether from the confrontation itself, or self-inflicted afterwards*) is great circumstantial evidence that a jury will totally eat up.

(click to show/hide)

*Is that fair to allege of Zimmerman?  Probably not.  But you know what?  Fuck him.  He's actually around to defend his character and his actions.  His team did a hell of a job character assassinating the BOY HE KILLED.  Who doesn't have the ability to defend his name anymore.

[bhu]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/31/florida-man-acquitted-via-stand-your-ground-after-shooting-wifes-lover/

http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2012-05-11/story/jacksonville-woman-sentenced-20-years-prison-stand-your-ground

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/florida-stand-your-ground-law-yields-some-shocking-outcomes-depending-on/1233133

http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/cases/case_189

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/28/miami-judge-rules-in-stan_n_1385219.html

[Sinfire Titan]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/31/florida-man-acquitted-via-stand-your-ground-after-shooting-wifes-lover/

http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2012-05-11/story/jacksonville-woman-sentenced-20-years-prison-stand-your-ground

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/florida-stand-your-ground-law-yields-some-shocking-outcomes-depending-on/1233133

http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/cases/case_189

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/28/miami-judge-rules-in-stan_n_1385219.html

Only in Florida.


I hate this place.

[StreamOfTheSky]

My wife loves Florida for the weather.  We got married in the Keys.  We were thinking of going back for our anniversary next year...I don't think that's happening now.  I also figured, since my mom has a timeshare in Orlando, we could ride the Auto Train (whose Florida destination just happens to be Sanford) down some year and stay there.  That definitely won't be happening now.

[oslecamo]

Trayvon followed George with the intent or knowledge that a physical altercation would results, lent credence by the fact that he began that altercation homicidical psycopath wanted him dead at all costs and the only survival chance Trayvon had was disabling said homicidical psycopath before he could take aim with his gun. Trying to escape would've just resulted in Trayvon shot in the back, and George claiming in tribunal that the kid was a specialist in backfighting lethal martial arts.

Fixed that for you.

George was out for a kill. That is a fact, since indeed he killed someone that night.

Trayvon didn't want anybody to die that night. That is a fact, since if he did slam Geoge's head into the concrete, then Trayvon was extremely careful in not causing any lethal or even lasting damage to George's homicidical skull. Poor naive young had some faith the situation could be solved whitout anyone dying, the last mistake in that kid's life.

 

[Nanshork]

Why don't you guys take your Stand Your Ground law argument to another thread and stop derailing this one?  I'm tired of hearing about it everywhere I go.

[Elevevated Beat]

George was out for a kill. That is a fact, since indeed he killed someone that night.

Divorcing the above from the case for a minute, you may want to reword that. Just because someone kills another person does not mean that it is a fact that they were "out for a kill". That's supposition.

[dman11235]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-maine-crash-20130714,0,2201696.story

And can someone move the Trayvon stuff to another thread?

Because seriously.  I have heard absolutely no evidence put forth that proves Zimmerman did actually get attacked, much less get attacked first.  Sure, beat up.  not necessarily attacked.  And besides, what if he tried to hit Trayvon first, and Trayvon countered and knocked down Zimmerman, everything else panning out as Zimmerman said?

Oh, and when you're in a fight, you get hurt too.  If there was no blood on Trayvon (other than the gunshot), how did he give Zimmerman a bloody nose?  If you punch someone, there is evidence on your hand (either a bruise or just irritation, or broken bones, depending on the force).  So many other ways to add evidence that weren't.  And once again, the burden of proof should had been on Zimmerman to prove he was defending himself, not on Trayvon to prove he wasn't attacking.

[Demelain]

And can someone move the Trayvon stuff to another thread?

This would probably be wise, if we want to really pursue this.

Oh, and when you're in a fight, you get hurt too.  If there was no blood on Trayvon (other than the gunshot), how did he give Zimmerman a bloody nose?  If you punch someone, there is evidence on your hand (either a bruise or just irritation, or broken bones, depending on the force).

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/05/autopsy-reveals-travon-martin-had-bloody-knuckles-when-he-died/
I apologize, I should have been more clear, as I don't really think of the damage sustained to your hands while beating someone to be "injuries". But Trayvon did have bloodied hands.

So many other ways to add evidence that weren't.  And once again, the burden of proof should had been on Zimmerman to prove he was defending himself, not on Trayvon to prove he wasn't attacking.

You have a gross misunderstanding of the American justice system. The defendant does not have toprove that he is telling the truth - the prosecution has to prove that he is not. That is the way it should be. Burden of proof should never lie with the defendant.

Because seriously.  I have heard absolutely no evidence put forth that proves Zimmerman did actually get attacked, much less get attacked first.  Sure, beat up.  not necessarily attacked.  And besides, what if he tried to hit Trayvon first, and Trayvon countered and knocked down Zimmerman, everything else panning out as Zimmerman said?

More like you've either failed to investigate or willfully ignore evidence. And the second half of that is nothing but speculation - which is not grounds for conviction.
You wish to live in a fantasy world where you can fabricate events and say "it might have been like this so it was like this," but I'd rather live in reality where we look at evidence, ask people who were involved or observed the events, and make informed decisions about it from there.

On the off-chance that you've taken a Statistics class, think of it in terms of a hypothesis test. We have the null hypothesis (Zimmerman is telling the truth) and the alternative hypothesis (Zimmerman is not telling the truth). If there is insufficient evidence to support the alternative hypothesis, you must accept the null hypothesis.

[dman11235]

You have a gross misunderstanding of the American justice system. The defendant does not have toprove that he is telling the truth - the prosecution has to prove that he is not. That is the way it should be. Burden of proof should never lie with the defendant.

Exactly.  Trayvon should not have had to prove his innocence.  Zimmerman admitted to shooting Trayvon.  So he proved his own guilt.  You have evidence of a gunshot, a confession, and bam, case closed.  ON the other hand, you have evidence of a story by the guy allegedly attacked, and...do you have a source other than a site that literally has "pundit" in its name?  You have evidence of Trayvon being stalked.  You have no evidence of Trayvon being a threat before the confrontation.  That's Zimmerman being the aggressor.  Not the other way around.  Even if Trayvon had the first physical hit, it's still Zimmerman causing the confrontation with someone who was supposed to be there, doing nothing wrong, and unarmed.  I'd like to see the full evidence, because the evidence I have seen (from CNN, and ABC's corrected story, and a couple other minor but reputable sources) shows no conclusive evidence that Zimmerman was defending himself from an aggressive Trayvon, rather Zimmerman pushing for a confrontation and eventually getting it.  The time line we have actual evidence for: Zimmerman sees kid in hoodie, thinks him to be suspicious, calls 911.  911 tells him to not pursue (note: original Zimmerman story was that 911 told him to pursue, then he changed his story), he pursues anyways.  Trayvon has call in which he says some creepy person is following him.  Zimmerman and Trayvon in scuffle and Trayvon shot.  We have no evidence between those calls and the fight.  So there is no way to know who started the physical confrontation, only the story of Zimmerman to go off of.  So now Trayvon is guilty of assault, essentially, because the prosecution couldn't prove he didn't.

[Demelain]

Exactly.  Trayvon should not have had to prove his innocence. 

Stopped reading, because you continue to fail to understand. Trayvon Martin was not on trial.

[dman11235]

Not technically, but essentially he was.  The jury ruled that the prosecution did not successfully prove that Trayvon was not the aggressor.  That's what's so messed up about that law.  The victim has to prove that they aren't the aggressor.