Zimmerman

[DarkLink]

So, I'm both a little disappointed of Americans, but proud of our justice system right now. This quote from some random person I don't know showed up on my facebook feed:


If Trayvon Martin had been born white he would be alive today. That has been established beyond all reasonable doubt. If he had been white, he never would have been stalked by Zimmerman, there would have been no fight, no funeral, no trial, no verdict. It is the Zimmerman mindset that must be found guilty - far more than the man himself. It is a mindset that views black men and boys as nothing but a threat, good for nothing, up to no good no matter who they are or what they are doing. It is the Zimmerman mindset that has birthed a penal system unprecedented in world history, and relegated millions to a permanent undercaste. Trayvon, you will not be forgotten. We will honor you - and the millions your memory represents - by building a movement that makes America what it must become. RIP

The fundamental misunderstanding of how our justice system does, and should, work is almost scary.

This whole claim is, for one, an opinion statement. It is likely inaccurate; if there had been substantial evidence that Zimmerman's actions were racially motivated (http://gawker.com/5898876/nbc-apologizes-for-editing-george-zimmermans-911-call-on-today-show), the prosecution could have charged him with a hate crime, which they haven't as far as I can tell. Whether or not Zimmerman is racist is irrelevant to the actual charges filed. This individual seems to believe that Zimmerman is racist, and that automatically makes him guilty on all counts.

Similarly:


Attorney General Eric Holder,
The Department of Justice has closely monitored the State of Florida’s prosecution of the case against George Zimmerman in the Trayvon Martin murder since it began. Today, with the acquittal of George Zimmerman, it is time for the Department of Justice to act.
The most fundamental of civil rights — the right to life — was violated the night George Zimmerman stalked and then took the life of Trayvon Martin. We ask that the Department of Justice file civil rights charges against Mr. Zimmerman for this egregious violation.
Please address the travesties of the tragic death of Trayvon Martin by acting today.
Thank you.

This letter from the NAACP President is equally disturbing, for a slightly different reason. Where the first quote accuses Zimmerman of racism and assumes guilt as such, the letter seems to completely ignore the simplest of concepts of legal self defense and assumed innocence. This is another statement from the NAACP:


“Florida’s dangerous ‘Shoot First’ law allowed Trayvon’s killer to walk free without charges for more than a month. Shoot First legalizes vigilante homicide, has demonstrated racial bias in its application, and has led to an increase in gun-related deaths in the more than two dozen states where it has been passed into law,” argues Color of Change, as part of its campaign to strike down “stand your ground” laws (http://colorofchange.org/campaign/end-shoot-first/).

There are couple of fundamental misunderstandings in this statement regarding self defense laws.

First, they refer to the Stand Your Ground law as Shoot First, which is blatantly false. Stand Your Ground removes any duty to retreat, but it only applies in cases of self defense. For something to be self defense, the defendant must have good cause to believe their attacker has the a) means and b) intent to cause either death or serious bodily harm. The only way in which you could 'shoot first' is if, say, someone pulled out a knife and charged you while yelling "I'm gonna kill you", or something to that effect. The self defense laws don't apply if you whip out your gun and shoot someone without establishing both means and intent to inflict either lethal or serious bodily harm.

To emphasize, Stand Your Ground only removes the duty to retreat. Some places specify that, even if someone is about to stab you to death, you have to try and run away before you can fight back. Stand your ground simply lets you skip to the fighting back part presuming it is self defense, with some caveats depending on what state you live in. Basically the entire western world allows you to Stand Your Ground in your own home. Florida allows you to do so while on public property as well.

In the Zimmerman case, Stand Your Ground never actually came into effect. While it's uncertain who started the fight, as there were no direct witnesses, all the evidence does point to Martin getting Zimmerman to the ground and physically striking him. At that point, Zimmerman no longer had a means to retreat, which means that regardless of the Stand Your Ground law, he could legally fight back with potentially lethal force, presuming it was self defense. The Stand Your Ground law only matter insomuch as some idiot grabbed a hold of the term and tried to use it as a red herring to undermine the investigation as to what actually happened.

What we're left with is the question of who escalated the fight. Not who initiated contact but who escalated the fight to the level of inflicting serious or lethal bodily harm. It doesn't matter, as far as the murder charge is concerned, why Zimmerman was suspicious of Martin. Maybe Zimmerman was a little racist, maybe not, but even racist *******s still have a legal right to self defense.

About the only physical evidence that we have is that Zimmerman approached Martin, somehow a fight started, Martin got Zimmerman down on the ground, broke his nose and slammed his head into the ground, someone cried for help (Zimmerman, according to the neighbors who heard the cries), and then Zimmerman shot Martin. Being the subject of an unwelcome ground and pound outside a cage match is enough to satisfy the means and intent for self defense. And here's where we come back to innocent until proven guilty.

The prosecution has to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman was guilty. They had to prove that either he did, or had the intent to, escalate the confrontation. Since all the physical evidence points to Zimmerman being the one on the receiving end of the beatdown, there simply wasn't enough evidence to prove guilt. And since we employ the idea of innocent until proven guilty, Zimmerman was found not guilty.

There is still the matter of why Zimmerman approached Martin in the first place. If you're wondering about that, you've probably never lived in a rich, gated community before. I happened to grow up in one. I've lived in one since before it actually had gates, and before a bunch of rich people moved in and started instituting a bunch of stupid rules. I've actually been stopped by the neighborhood watch guy who drives around in a truck with a stupid SECURITY sticker on the side. If he hadn't been a pretty nice guy, I'd've told him that I've lived there longer than he has and that he can bugger off. Never mind that in the past twenty years we've had maybe one whole break-in, and they caught the teenagers who did it.

So it doesn't surprise me in the least that someone would find a random teenager, black or not, in a hoodie late at night whom they didn't recognize a little suspicious. But it's perfectly legal to approach someone in your neighborhood. Bad judgement? Maybe. But I find it perfectly reasonable that it would happen.

Now, I can't say whether or not Zimmerman was guilty or innocent. I wasn't in the courtroom, I didn't see all the evidence, or lack thereof. But neither did most of these people. They're condemning both It's the fact that a lot of this feels like an internet lynching mob that bothers me. At the same time, I appreciate that the justice system presumably stuck to its guns. Maybe there's something I'm completely missing, despite the googling I've done. But it feels to me like there's a large portion of America that wants to blame everything on race and refuses to view the matter rationally. Yeah, maybe we do still have a major race problem. I just don't think that, in this case, it's the one that most people seem to think it is.

[eldargal]

The thing is if Zimmerman had been black and the dead boy white most people think he would never have been acquitted, and when you have a woman who defends herself against an abusive husband getting 20 years for attempted murder despite Stand Your Ground you can see where they are coming from. The laws are being reviewed for racial bias I believe.

I mean in the past few days you've had two Stand Your Ground defenses, the white man gets acquitted despite killing someone, the black woman gets twenty years despite injuring no one. It just feeds the perception of institutional racism and sexism.

[Kirsten]

[SIZE=2]I appreciate that the justice system presumably stuck to its guns.

which is exactly the problem with america

[YorkNecromancer]

http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18tsr2xy87y01png/ku-xlarge.png
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/criminal-justice/is-there-racial-bias-in-stand-your-ground-laws/
http://www.aclu.org/blog/capital-punishment/dred-scott-our-time

[eldargal]

Revolting but interesting, I wonder if there is similar data for women. I mean gun ownership is supposed to make women safer (which it doesn't) but it would be interesting to know how the law treats SYG cases when it is a woman doing it.

[Kirsten]

the onion
http://www.theonion.com/articles/i-think-people-could-have-been-a-little-more-sympa,33073/?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=Quote:Week1:Default

[DarkLink]

which is exactly the problem with america

Not really. In fact, within the USA, violent crime is pretty strongly inversely proportional to the percentage of adults who own guns. That's a general worldwide trend as well, but to go with the low-crime-high-gun-ownership nations there are a lot of low-crime-low-gun-ownership. Either way, your implied premise that guns cause crime is pretty blatantly false. That's not the same as saying that they prevent crime, since the inverse relationship it a little too shaky to attribute decreased violent crime rates to increased gun ownership rather than factors such as low poverty and high standards of living, but the point remains. Plus, that's not really relevant to the issue I have here.


The thing is if Zimmerman had been black and the dead boy white most people think he would never have been acquitted, and when you have a woman who defends herself against an abusive husband getting 20 years for attempted murder despite Stand Your Ground you can see where they are coming from. The laws are being reviewed for racial bias I believe.

I mean in the past few days you've had two Stand Your Ground defenses, the white man gets acquitted despite killing someone, the black woman gets twenty years despite injuring no one. It just feeds the perception of institutional racism and sexism.

Within the context of this particular case, though. There wasn't enough evidence to prove guilt. I'm not really familiar with the other cases you mention, I only know about the Zimmerman case because it's been popping up everywhere today and I have a fairly good understanding of self defense laws for a non-lawyer. And Florida did review their Stand Your Ground laws during the trial, but concluded their review without recommending any changes. Any racial bias would be on the part of the judge, jury, and prosecution, rather than the laws themselves. I know the law certainly doesn't say "if they have the intent and means to harm you, or if they're black, you can shoot them".

[eldargal]

The issue isn't necessarily with the Zimmerman case, there may well be a lack of evidence against Zimmermen. The issue is how the law is applied to others, in this case a black woman in Florida who fired two warning shots, injuring no one, while defending herself and her children from her abusive husband. She go 20 years for attempted murder. so people are comparing the cases, one person dead and the killer acquitted and no one injured and the defender imprisoned for two decades and saying 'WTF?!'. Justifiably so, as the SYG clearly accomplished its goal for Zimmerman but a black woman evidently isn't allowed to defend herself in her own home against a man.

[Kirsten]

is there any actual evidence about what happened? Zimmerman made sure Martin could not give his side of the story. He reported Martin for looking suspicious when he was minding his own business walking down the street. Zimmerman got out of his car and confronted Martin. is there any evidence at all that Martin attacked first? It is disgusting that he can be acquitted for instigating murder. the whole trial is a joke.

[DarkLink]

Actually, I don't think that would be a particularly good comparison for the simple fact that Stand Your Ground normally doesn't apply inside the home. If the shooting occurred inside the home, then regular self defense laws cover that situation. It would follow the Castle Doctrine, which we inherited directly from you.

Anyways, your mention is the first I heard of the comparison. I've heard plenty of comments about how 'the jurors should go kill themselves', or how 'only a cracker would think Zimmerman wasn't guilty' and things like that, but nothing comparing two disparate cases.

Edit:

There's the police phone call, which covers everything up till about where Zimmerman confronted Martin. That's where I think the accusations of racism stem from, because I it was think ABC released an edited version that was specifically designed to make Zimmerman sound racist. Classic case of media misquoting stuff out of context. Also, Martin was on the phone with someone shortly before the confrontation.

Some of the neighbors heard some form of cry for help, and at least one was "110% certain it was Zimmerman".

Zimmerman had a broken nose and some other injuries consistent with his claim that he was thrown to the ground and beaten.

And, obviously, Martin got shot.

Edit2: Also, the woman Martin was talking to on the phone with apparently kind of got discredited for, if not outright lying, making misleading statements about what she did or didn't hear.

[Kirsten]

Zimmerman has instigated every stage of this encounter. he has followed and harrassed an innocent man for no reason. You say it is reasonable that a man should be concerned at the sight of a hooded youth on his own. what about Martin, he is walking home, minding his own business, when an armed man starts following him down the street and confronts him. Zimmerman is entirely at fault and he is guilty of murder. He had a broken nose, oh boo hoo how tragic for him. you don't kill someone over a broken nose, it is not life threatening. it is an absolute travesty that he is walking free, and that anyone could think he deserves to.

[DarkLink]

Also, I believe the reason it was considered self defense is that the only thing we really know about the confrontation before the shooting was that Martin threw Zimmerman to the ground and started punching him. It's theoretically possible that Zimmerman swung first, but Martin's only injury was the gunshot wound, and we know that Martin almost certainly had the upper hand during the fight, so it's a bit of a trick to prove that Zimmerman wasn't on the defensive.

And just for reference, Zimmerman is hispanic. Technically mixed race, his mother was from Peru I believe. He also had some witnesses testify to his character, supposedly there was a case where a black kid was beaten by a police officer, and Zimmerman handed out protest flyers. I obviously don't know Zimmerman, but frankly the only way I can see justifiably calling him racist is if I had failed to do the research and just jumped to conclusions based on biased news headlines. Which is kind of my point.

[daboarder]

The thing is if Zimmerman had been black and the dead boy white most people think he would never have been acquitted, and when you have a woman who defends herself against an abusive husband getting 20 years for attempted murder despite Stand Your Ground you can see where they are coming from. The laws are being reviewed for racial bias I believe.

I mean in the past few days you've had two Stand Your Ground defenses, the white man gets acquitted despite killing someone, the black woman gets twenty years despite injuring no one. It just feeds the perception of institutional racism and sexism.

Something to note is that had the situation been reversed and a zimmerman had been black and acquitted you can be guaranteed that you would not have people up in arms about race being a determining factor.

I cannot remember the last article I read where a person of European decent was the subject of racism? Does this mean it does not happen? Hell no! My grandparents we're subject to serious and extreme racism when they moved to Australia and they are Scottish.

getting rid of racism is a great thing, but equality should be the goal, not a tit for tat payback.

A perfect example is going to be what I now say and the very fact that I feel I NEED to include this within this post.

DO NOT TAKE THE ABOVE THE WRONG WAY I DO NOT GIVE A CRAP ABOUT A PERSONS RACE.

[DarkLink]

That's the point I was hoping to make, daboarder. If the other case was subject to racial bias, that sucks, but that doesn't mean we should just start tossing white people in jail until we've got 'equality'.


Zimmerman has instigated every stage of this encounter. he has followed and harrassed an innocent man for no reason.

I find it believable, and while it is kind of dickish* (like I said, I've had it happen to me, and I frikin' live here), it's perfectly legal for someone who doesn't live in the gated community to be asked to leave. Given my understanding of how neighborhood watch types tend to think, dickish or not, I seriously doubt he was approached because he was black, and I doubt that Zimmerman just randomly started waving his gun at him.

*In fact, I believe I specifically used the words "bad judgement".



You say it is reasonable that a man should be concerned at the sight of a hooded youth on his own.

Now you're putting words in my mouth. That's rather insulting.



what about Martin, he is walking home, minding his own business, when an armed man starts following him down the street and confronts him. Zimmerman is entirely at fault and he is guilty of murder. He had a broken nose, oh boo hoo how tragic for him. you don't kill someone over a broken nose, it is not life threatening. it is an absolute travesty that he is walking free, and that anyone could think he deserves to.

Ah, I see where you're going with this. Before you said this, I assumed that you were operating from a rational position. Instead, it seems you're going to just cherry pick quotes out of context and throw out red herrings in an attempt to lead to your foregone conclusion. I was hoping to have a more adult conversation, frankly.

Now, since you apparently didn't bother to read all of my post, I specifically said that I don't know whether or not he was guilty because I haven't seen sufficient evidence to convince me either way. What I did say was that the reactions to this case concerned me in that they regularly displayed a lack of understanding of our self defense laws, how our justice system operates, why our justice system operates the way it does, and whether or not and/or how race was involved in the case.


The point is, I can see both sides of the problem happening. Zimmerman approaches Martin, Martin gets aggressive and starts the fight, or Zimmerman gets aggressive. I don't see evidence that Zimmerman did anything more than follow Martin around a while before deciding to tell him to leave the neighborhood. Maybe he did confront Martin and start the fight. But. You. Need. Proof. Since you can't seem to understand that, Kirsten, I don't think there's anything more to discuss with you.




Also, if you don't think that a street fight can't result in death or serious injury... really (http://fightsdepot.com/parking-lot-fight-ends-in-knockout/)? Regardless of your opinion, that's one aspect of the case that's not under question as far as I can tell. Legally, presuming he didn't start the fight, being attacked like he claims he was pretty easily clears the bar for self defense. It's not a question of the level of force used, it's about whether or not it was self defense or murder.

[eldargal]

I agree, Zimmerman shouldn't be punished because he is white and the murdered man is black. However that doesn't change the fact that there is a reason there reaction has been what it has been. There is a perception, backed by certain statistics, that indicate there is a strong racial bias against blacks in the way the law is being applied. The laws are being investigated at a federal level because of it. You can't blame people for being angry when in case after case it seems SYG is a get out of jail free card for white men.

[daboarder]

I agree, Zimmerman shouldn't be punished because he is white and the murdered man is black. However that doesn't change the fact that there is a reason there reaction has been what it has been. There is a perception, backed by certain statistics, that indicate there is a strong racial bias against blacks in the way the law is being applied. The laws are being investigated at a federal level because of it. You can't blame people for being angry when in case after case it seems SYG is a get out of jail free card for white men.

Oh its a fair point and the data does seem to show a bias (however there are many other potential factors such as likely up bringing of the people involved, the data should also be normalised, if 10 people of one race are charged with an offence and 1 of them is found innocent, and then 3 people of another race are charged with the same offence and two of them are found innocent that doesn't mean that race is the determining factor as the sample sizes are drastically different.)

ultimately I'm just glad I live in Australia where the worst I have to usually put up with is some dickhead on a bus mouthing off. Just remeber eldargal that this is america not the UK. Though to be fair I've always been irritated at the notion that america was built on the back of european enslavement of africans, people jsut don't realise that it was built on the enslavement of anyone they could get their hands on, the words "indentured criminal" are important (look at OZ, we wouldn't exist if the UK didn't need somewhere else to send all the people clogging up their gaols after the american revolution.)

/ramble

[DarkLink]

While I can see where you're coming from, and that gives at least a little more context, but like I said, I haven't really seen any comments discussing that discrepancy. I personally haven't seen any 'why does Zimmerman walk when X goes to jail for the same thing'. If there is a more intellectual discussion of race issues revolving around that, then that's probably a good thing. I've just seen a lot more... discussion... of the lowbrow variety.

And again, Zimmerman is hispanic;). If 'rich hispanic' is the same thing as white, then that might be a kind of roundabout victory, where money and not race is what matters. Which brings its own set of problems, but one step at a time.


Edit:
Also, did that racial bias study control for poverty levels? Ethnic groups tend to be more poverty stricken, and that's a fairly strong correlation with crime, which would lead to the appearance that certain ethnic groups are convicted of more crimes. You've always got to be careful with the difference between correlation and causation in statistic.

[eldargal]

As I said I don't think it is Zimmerman so much as the perception (seemingly justified by the statistics) that black men can be murdered with impunity if the killer claims self-defense.

[Kirsten]

[SIZE=2]
So it doesn't surprise me in the least that someone would find a random teenager, black or not, in a hoodie late at night whom they didn't recognize a little suspicious.


Now you're putting words in my mouth. That's rather insulting.

Ah, I see where you're going with this. Before you said this, I assumed that you were operating from a rational position. Instead, it seems you're going to just cherry pick quotes out of context and throw out red herrings in an attempt to lead to your foregone conclusion. I was hoping to have a more adult conversation, frankly.

words in your mouth? read your own posts.

cherry pick quotes? you are just talking absolute nonsense. let's look at the facts shall we?
Zimmerman sees a stranger walking home and finds it suspicious.
Zimmerman calls the police to report the suspicious activity.
Zimmerman feels calling the police is not enough, gets out of his car, with a gun on his person, and approaches Martin.
Zimmerman must initiate conversation here, he is the one walking behind Martin, he must confront him in some way.
A fight breaks out, and we have Zimmerman's word for it that he was attacked. at some point his nose is broken.
Zimmerman shoots and kills Martin.

he is guilty. there is no cherry picking. you don't seem to understand the fundamentals of what is going on here. I am not spinning any bias, I am using your own words and pointing out why you are wrong. I don't need proof that Martin didn't do something any more than Zimmerman needs proof. You said, as quoted above, that Zimmerman was reasonable to find Martin suspicious, yet you completely gloss over the fact that Martin has every bit as much right to be suspicious and defend himself against a lone man on the street who has followed him.

I really don't see why you feel there is some sort of flaw in my reasoning, which is perfectly straight forward, or that it is in some way not an adult debate for pointing out where you are wrong. or are people automatically childish for not agreeing with you?

I never said a street fight can't result in death, now you are the one putting words in my mouth. rather hypocritical of you isn't it. It is a question of force used because he is a grown man capable of making a decision. the vast majority of street fights do not result in death. the chances are incredibly slim that he had no chance to leave and was going to be beaten to death. that is a statistical fact. He was suspicious, he confronted somebody without cause, he shot and killed someone after receiving a beating. he is guilty.

[daboarder]

Guys, calm the hell down.

This comes down to one thing really?

HOW MUCH DO YOU VALUE YOUR JUSTICE SYSTEM

Do you accept the verdict handed down by the jury who have access to ALL the information without media bull**** spin?
Or do you believe that a trial by peers is fundamentally flawed due to a bunch of racist pricks.

[Wildeybeast]

I have no doubt whatsoever that trial by a jury of your peers is a fundamentally flawed process, regardless of any prejudices those jurors may hold. It is however the closest we will get to a 'fair system' and so we must persevere with it.

[daboarder]

I have no doubt whatsoever that trial by a jury of your peers is a fundamentally flawed process, regardless of any prejudices those jurors may hold. It is however the closest we will get to a 'fair system' and so we must persevere with it.

Personally I agree with you, but for this to work the society needs to accept that it can't work itself into a fever pitch whenever a highly publicised case sets their panties in a twist.

If there is a US federal review into the circumstances of case like these then fantastic, but until the findings of such a review is released then why get worked up at someone else's urging.

[eldargal]

It's possible to be proud of the strengths of your legal system and still acknowledge it's flaws. I think Britain's is rather good all in all even with serious flaws such as the institutional demonisation of rape victims and sometimes bizarre sentencing.

[Wildeybeast]

Agreed EG.

@Daboarder. I think describing it as 'panties in a twist' is a bit harsh. A man, who, by the standards of most reasonable people, did not deserve to die, has been killed. The public perception is that someone should be held accountable for this, namely the man who killed him. It may not be murder (indeed, it legally isn't) but it is clear that Zimmerman is at least partly accountable for instigating events that led directly to Martyn's death. It follows that with accountability there comes some form of punishment for wrong doing. This has not happened and so most of the public feels robbed of 'justice'. The legal system has done what it should and found him not guilty on the basis of the evidence presented. The fundamental problem is that there is a disconnect between the legal system and the public idea of justice, which is people are so angry. There is of course a wider debate to be had about how far notions of vengeance and issues surrounding race have influenced that notion of justice, but people are entitled to be angry when they feel something immoral has taken place and gone unpunished. That this anger has been expressed in a profoundly stupid way by many may undermine its credibility, but we should not dismiss it out of hand.

[daboarder]

wildeybeast,

just wanted to clarify that my intention was not to make light of the situation.

I type how I would speak, you may find the following enlightening in that regard, or not, but its funny just to read anyway.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GdayMate
http://www.languagehat.com/archives/003594.php

[chicop76]

From what I remembered a year ago about the case and dealing with everyone's reactions it was very sicking. For starters half white is white, but we can go to the hispanic side and forget the white part all together. The whiter you are the better. The same goes for black people. Black people who are half white and light skin tone are treated way better than full black people.

A good example is take someone like beyonce skin color. Sure she will get racial bias, but not to much fear are anger will be shown. Take some one who is really dark skinned and than it goes down hill.

I'll take my family for example. Most of my family is creole, but since creole is not really a race the last 80 years are a culture we are simply black. Only a very small handful of my family is dark brown with like 6 or 7 that would be looked at as black as Martin. However only like 6-7 of us could actually pass as white people. I say this, because of experance half my family is very racist towards dark skin blacks. I wouldn't say I am, but I do catch myself at times due to family up bringing and the media. Working with the National Guard who helped out NOPD during Katrina really didn't help.

Long story short he can help out blacks and still be very racist. Florida is still the south. The southern states are the worst offenders. When I go up north it's a differant atmosphere. Heck when I go overseas you can feel the differance. When I left the south for 4 months and came back I immediately picked up the hidden or underlined racism.

Going back to Zimmerman I havn't looked at anything happening now. For the sake of staying happy. My comments will be out dated.

The problems I see here is this.

1. Neighborhood watch in that area are not allowed to be armed on patrol. In other words engaing with the youth if it was under the guise of being neighborhood watch he should't had been armed.

2. Operator told him to pretty much leavebthe boy alone and the police was comming.

3. He had at least 2 encounters with Martin. One in his truck. Than again when he was away from his vehicle. He go out of his truck and followed Martin after he question the boy the first time.

4. Ok. Look at it from Matin's prospective. A white man stops you and questions you. A few miniutes later same man got out of his truck following you with a gun. I think the most important detail is was the gun visable or not. I doubt Martin fought an armed man for no reason. We may never know, but now I know I have the right to question any one and follow them as much as I like.

Ignoring both people's past. I really hate Fox news. Anyway @ Eldargirl what the women did wrong was not shoot to kill, by letting him live he is able to defend himself and you get the other side. With the Martin case he was silenced and couldn't protect himself. You have no witness there to so otherwise.

The #1 reason why I think I would vote note guilty for Zimmerman is this.
Who in their right mind is going to kill someone after they called the police.


In my opinion Zimmerman was heated since he felt the police would take awhile to get their. In his mind Martin was up to no good. When he confronted Martin the first time it only justified that the boy was up to no good. In Zimmerman's mind he felt he needed to do something so Martin doesn't get away. With Zimmerman's blood and heart rate being pumped up he went to follow Martin on foot. Not to mention that a loaded gun always bring about loaded courage. I don't know who hit who first, but I strongly believe that Zimmerman engage Martin in an aggitated state.

[chicop76]

Personally I agree with you, but for this to work the society needs to accept that it can't work itself into a fever pitch whenever a highly publicised case sets their panties in a twist.

If there is a US federal review into the circumstances of case like these then fantastic, but until the findings of such a review is released then why get worked up at someone else's urging.

That is why I feel nothing right now. I got it out of my system. Until I see or read the evidence that was presented in trial I can't really fee injustice have been served. However if I was Zimmerman I would think he should really watch his back. Whould be a shame if he was killed in the same manner.

[DarkLink]

Do you accept the verdict handed down by the jury who have access to ALL the information without media bull**** spin?
Or do you believe that a trial by peers is fundamentally flawed due to a bunch of racist pricks.

Pretty much this. I'm not a lawyer or anything, but based on my understanding of how the laws work, how the justice system works, and the evidence available to the jury, I can understand the verdict. Maybe these cases aren't always handled properly, like what Eldargal is talking about. But that doesn't mean that it isn't morally reprehensible when someone who clearly doesn't understand the relevant laws or the evidence of what happened declares that they magically just know that he's got to be guilty and that he's totally racist.

[Earl Harbinger]

From what I remembered a year ago about the case and dealing with everyone's reactions it was very sicking. For starters half white is white, but we can go to the hispanic side and forget the white part all together. The whiter you are the better. The same goes for black people. Black people who are half white and light skin tone are treated way better than full black people.

A good example is take someone like beyonce skin color. Sure she will get racial bias, but not to much fear are anger will be shown. Take some one who is really dark skinned and than it goes down hill.

I'll take my family for example. Most of my family is creole, but since creole is not really a race the last 80 years are a culture we are simply black. Only a very small handful of my family is dark brown with like 6 or 7 that would be looked at as black as Martin. However only like 6-7 of us could actually pass as white people. I say this, because of experance half my family is very racist towards dark skin blacks. I wouldn't say I am, but I do catch myself at times due to family up bringing and the media. Working with the National Guard who helped out NOPD during Katrina really didn't help.

Long story short he can help out blacks and still be very racist. Florida is still the south. The southern states are the worst offenders. When I go up north it's a differant atmosphere. Heck when I go overseas you can feel the differance. When I left the south for 4 months and came back I immediately picked up the hidden or underlined racism.

Going back to Zimmerman I havn't looked at anything happening now. For the sake of staying happy. My comments will be out dated.

The problems I see here is this.

1. Neighborhood watch in that area are not allowed to be armed on patrol. In other words engaing with the youth if it was under the guise of being neighborhood watch he should't had been armed.

2. Operator told him to pretty much leavebthe boy alone and the police was comming.

3. He had at least 2 encounters with Martin. One in his truck. Than again when he was away from his vehicle. He go out of his truck and followed Martin after he question the boy the first time.

4. Ok. Look at it from Matin's prospective. A white man stops you and questions you. A few miniutes later same man got out of his truck following you with a gun. I think the most important detail is was the gun visable or not. I doubt Martin fought an armed man for no reason. We may never know, but now I know I have the right to question any one and follow them as much as I like.

Ignoring both people's past. I really hate Fox news. Anyway @ Eldargirl what the women did wrong was not shoot to kill, by letting him live he is able to defend himself and you get the other side. With the Martin case he was silenced and couldn't protect himself. You have no witness there to so otherwise.

The #1 reason why I think I would vote note guilty for Zimmerman is this.
Who in their right mind is going to kill someone after they called the police.


In my opinion Zimmerman was heated since he felt the police would take awhile to get their. In his mind Martin was up to no good. When he confronted Martin the first time it only justified that the boy was up to no good. In Zimmerman's mind he felt he needed to do something so Martin doesn't get away. With Zimmerman's blood and heart rate being pumped up he went to follow Martin on foot. Not to mention that a loaded gun always bring about loaded courage. I don't know who hit who first, but I strongly believe that Zimmerman engage Martin in an aggitated state.

Did you not watch the trial? Because there was no evidence submitted or testimony given to support most of what you postulate happened.

[Earl Harbinger]

I agree, Zimmerman shouldn't be punished because he is white and the murdered man is black. However that doesn't change the fact that there is a reason there reaction has been what it has been. There is a perception, backed by certain statistics, that indicate there is a strong racial bias against blacks in the way the law is being applied. The laws are being investigated at a federal level because of it. You can't blame people for being angry when in case after case it seems SYG is a get out of jail free card for white men.

Are you deliberately ignoring the fact that Florida's Stand Your Ground law had absolutely NOTHING to do with the prosecution of George Zimmerman? It was not applicable to the events that occurred. Zimmerman's defense was based entirely on simple self defense and given the evidence and testimony presented in court the proper verdict was rendered.

If the encounter had happened exactly the same way only Zimmerman was unarmed and didn't shoot Martin, the only person who committed a crime would be Martin. It's not a crime to believe that a strange teenager walking through your neighborhood at night is suspicious, it's not a crime to walk down the sidewalk at night, it's not a crime to call the police regarding the suspicious person you saw and it's not a crime to ask somebody what they're doing in your neighborhood. It is a crime to assault somebody because you believe he might be racially profiling you. Trayvon Martin could have simply ignored Zimmerman and walked on to his father's girlfriend's home without deciding to pick a fight with a stranger. Unfortunately for Trayvon, George had a gun. Fortunately for George, the justice system worked.

[Kirsten]

total bollocks Earl.

Stand your ground is being broguht up because that was the reason the police let him go in the first place and the reason it took six weeks for him to be charged with anything, so it is entirely relevant.
you have no evidence at all that martin is the one who committed assault, he may have been the one attacked, who legally defended himself and died for it. Do not try talking about something you clearly have no understanding of.

[chicop76]

Did you not watch the trial? Because there was no evidence submitted or testimony given to support most of what you postulate happened.

You don't read. I already stated I didn't look at the trial yet. I said I was going by all the differant media sources via a year ago.

Also I researched some information like can neighborhood watch are allowed to carry guns, etc.

I am not really surprised that he was found not guilty of second degree murder, which should had been manslaughter.

Like I said before. I serousily doubt hehad the intent of killing Martin. The act of calling 911 and the fact he never met the kid would probably have me voting Not guilty for second degree murder. I would had been shocked if he was found guilty for second degree murder.

However I seriously doubt it was self defense. When I have the time I will look at the case. The problem with the news media most are biased to one side instead of being neutral. I hate Fox news, but I still read them. When everyone says the same thing it is more than likely be true hopefully. However Fox does put out information MSNBC won't put out and vise versa. I hate MSNBC too, but not as much as Fox.

Any thing you want to question what I said say what it is and I can go from there. Saying a blanket statement does nothing.

In the end all I can say Zimmerman may have to look over his shoulder a lot.

[DarkLink]

Stand your ground is being broguht up because that was the reason the police let him go in the first place and the reason it took six weeks for him to be charged with anything, so it is entirely relevant.

http://reason.com/blog/2013/07/14/sorry-the-zimmerman-case-still-has-nothi

Not that I really expect you to listen considering how close minded you've been in all of your other posts, but I can try.



you have no evidence at all that martin is the one who committed assault, he may have been the one attacked, who legally defended himself and died for it. Do not try talking about something you clearly have no understanding of.

Are you kidding? Literally the only thing we know for certain about the fight is that Martin had Zimmerman on the ground and was striking him, before Zimmerman shot him. If you're going to ask loaded questions while ignoring some of the few facts we do know about the case, then where is the proof that Zimmerman threw the first punch?

Kirsten, the justice system acts on facts and evidence, not opinions. Because our system, for good reason, assumes innocence before guilt, and since the jury was not presented with adequate evidence to convict Zimmerman, they did not find him guilty. Our system works like that for a reason, and it's a good thing that it does work like that. If you can't grasp that, just go home. Figuratively speaking, since you can't really physically go somewhere on the internet, so that wouldn't make much sense taken literally.

[YorkNecromancer]

the justice system acts on facts and evidence, not opinions.

LOL.

I'm not commenting on the Zimmerman case - I don't know enough about it, and I don't care to learn as it'll just depress me - but that statement is disingenously naive. The justice system is, to all intents and purposes, about the resolution of disputes. The guilty go free and the innocent are condemned all the damn time. Facts and evidence are, sadly, only a tiny part of the process. Go ask the West Memphis Three how well facts helped them the first time round.

[Necron2.0]

My fundamental belief is that once a case (any case) gets "tried in the media," we the people will never ...
(NEVER)
... have any opportunity to learn the real truth, ever.

Still, in this case, given the rampant "white guilt" attitude and the amount of race baiting done by some in the black community, the fact that Zimmerman was found "not guilty" despite the overwhelming push to make an example of him (as evidenced by the Holder letter) fairly well proves to me that there wasn't anything there to show the incident was anything other than self-defense. One thing to note is that the jury was free to convict him of a lesser charge, and they declined to do so.

[Necron2.0]

http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18tsr2xy87y01png/ku-xlarge.png
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/criminal-justice/is-there-racial-bias-in-stand-your-ground-laws/
http://www.aclu.org/blog/capital-punishment/dred-scott-our-time

Just to play devils advocate, there is one major glaring flaw with the implication that this data highlights a bias. Maybe the data is not showing a bias, but rather is showing a fundamental truth of reality. Maybe the data is showing more justifiability in one situation over another because in the one case ... it is universally more justified. That ... is ... possible.

[chicop76]

My fundamental belief is that once a case (any case) gets "tried in the media," we the people will never ...
(NEVER)
... have any opportunity to learn the real truth, ever.

Still, in this case, given the rampant "white guilt" attitude and the amount of race baiting done by some in the black community, the fact that Zimmerman was found "not guilty" despite the overwhelming push to make an example of him (as evidenced by the Holder letter) fairly well proves to me that there wasn't anything there to show the incident was anything other than self-defense. One thing to note is that the jury was free to convict him of a lesser charge, and they declined to do so.

Lack of evidence desn't mean innocence. It just means lack of evidence. Only two people know what really happened and one of them is dead. However I now know if I plan to kill someone make sure I call the police on them and claim self defense.

The problem here is all you have is tht Zimmerman followed the youth. You have no clue if Zimmerman attacked Martin or not. Like Darklink said I can guess what really happened, but we will never know.

However the young boy was profiled. Until Katrina I never knew how much police justify doing it. I thought it was funny that me and a few others just stopped anyone who ran the blinking red lights. Interesting enough everyone is a criminal imagine that. However police tend to target young black males and hispanics. In the police defense if you get a call everyday about a black male in white or black t-shirt with blue jeans doing x more than anything you will stop them on a traffic stop and run their name in the system. They can go further, but to do so borders harresment and the evidence can be thrown out. Unless x person have crack in his lap. Even then if you don't handle the situation right he can still get out of it.

One example is this guy had drugs in the car, but was arrested for steaing the car and not for the drugs. Well he got off the drug charge due to his lawyer saying the drugs was already in the car. Amazing what you can pull.

Anyway I look at the whole situation two ways.

A. Zimmerman is really stupid, have a few coworkers I can see doing the same thing he did. He got his butt kicked, but bringing a gun to the situation made it worst.

The problem here it will encourage more Zimmerman acts than discourage.

B. Again this is how I see how things went down in my mind. It may not happen this way, but it's my theory.

1. Zimmerman verbally questions Martin and try to keep him there for the police to show up.
2. Martin probably went wtf and walked off.
3. Zimmerman probably tried to restrain him to keep him there for the police. No intent to do harm.
4. Martin not knowing his intent may think he is under attack and start fighting Zimmerman.
5. Zimmerman is getting his butt kicked fearing for his life shoots Martin.

That's how I see it and think what really happened. That is not second rate murder at all. The problem here it makes you ask a lot of questions.

For example:

1. How can Martin really be the person who is the aggressor. Zimmerman had to get out of his car, had to go in the court yard that is inbetween the homes. He was content on confronting Martin. The operator on the phon told him to stay put.

However the problem is he has the rite to walk up and question why is some one is in the neighborhood. The key element we do not know who started the fight. All we know is Martin got the better of Zimmerman and Zimmerman shot him.

2. Another question is did bring the weapon with him help caused Martin's death.

One thing I want to bring up is what if Martin was standing his ground. A White male is stalking him and confronts him with. Weapon. If he knows a weapon is involved and he feel cornered he may think he has to fight for his life.

Also Zimmerman probably wouldn't had confronted Martin without his weapon. Hince why I don't think anyone should carry a weapn on them. The weapon gives them courge instead of thinking the situation through.

I would had liked to see them downgrade the charge, but with little evidence that is out there what can you do.

The only issue I have is too many people felt sorry about Zimmerman. I am sorry. The man created the situation. He did his job and called the police. Unless you see the boy putting someone's life in danger he shouldn't had followed. It's legal to confront the boy, but all that does is cause a situation.

Do I think Zimmerman meant to kill Martin. No. However he could had avoided the situation. However if he did go to jail he probably would be safer than him being innocent with a bunch of people who now want him dead. The man have to fear for his life now.

[Necron2.0]

Lack of evidence desn't mean innocence.



He wasn't found innocent. He was found "not guilt" and a lack of evidence exactly means not guilty.

[chicop76]

He wasn't found innocent. He was found "not guilt" and a lack of evidence exactly means not guilty.

Ok. Let's put it this way. In court he is found not guilty. However it doesn't mean he is not guilty of the act.

Look at OJ for example. The gloves didn't fit so he is innocent and didn't kill his wife and her husband. He is innocent in the eyes of the law.

Speaking of OJ I wouldn't be surprised if they decide to go to civil court. Taking this to the supreme court would be a waste of time and money.

Like I said before and have seen for my self in New Orleans lack of evidence is not innocent.

They only ones who know if he really guilty or not is two people, and one of them is still alive.

[daboarder]

You do know that under common law, which the US justice system ascribes to, you have to prove that the person in question is guilty not innocent right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

its based on the idea that you'd rather let a criminal off than destroy the life of an innocent man. Its the same reason why some countries with common law do not have the death penalty any longer, their really is no argument against this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Ryan

[scadugenga]

My only thought re: the Zimmerman case v. the "warning shots" case is this:

In the "warning shots" case, you have someone, who willingly discharged a firearm at no specific person. Zimmerman claimed (rightly or wrongly, no one will ever know except for Zimmerman--and his own recollection may be fuzzy, since adrenaline surges in emotionally charged situations will play havoc with your memory) self-defense/stand your ground, and actually shot at, and hit, the person he claims was threatening his life.

Once Mr. Bullet leaves the barrel of the weapon, if you don't have a specific target you're aiming at, it's going to continue traveling until it finds something (or someone) that will stop it, or it loses momentum. Discharging a weapon at no particular target in a populated area is beyond-the-pale unconscionable and dangerous.

Most houses are not built to stop bullets. In fact, most 9mm rounds (the most common handgun sold in the US), having more velocity than is good for them, will keep on going through a house, and then some. Overpenetration is not your friend.

Which means that the lady who fired the gun as a "warning" put other lives needlessly at risk. That is where I fault her.

I don't necessarily agree with the attempted murder charge/conviction for Alexander. But she was certainly guilty of reckless endangerment and probably felonious use of a firearm. The fact she received 20 years--that's because 20 years was the minimum sentence.

Or, in other words, she should have shot the abusive SOB and then claimed stand your ground, and would've been lauded a hero.

And I find the cries of racism particularly repugnant in this case. Alexander is black. Ronald Thompson, a 65 year old white man, and disabled US Army veteran, discharged his weapon--in Florida, into the ground, so as not to risk public safety. He was "defending" an elderly woman who was being accosted by several young men (one of which was the woman's grandson). He was found guilty, sentenced to 20 years. Just like Alexander.

So shove the claims of racism down the toilet in this particular (Marissa Alexander) case. It's not appropriate, and it is insulting.

Thompson's trial was in 2009. The precedent for this particular "crime and punishment" was set with a disabled elderly white man who's only prior brush with the law was a DUI more than a decade earlier, and had logged over 5,000 hours as a volunteer with the VA Hospital.

[DarkLink]

Supposedly in Alexander's case she left the confrontation, found a weapon, and then returned to pick the confrontation back up again. Once she did that, legally she became the aggressor in this particular instance. If she had been acting purely in self defense, when she left the room she wouldn't have returned to pick up the confrontation again. From what I've seen, that's the set of actions that the jury decided the evidence pointed towards. If she had had the gun on her and drew it in self defense, or if her husband had followed her and caught up to her when she retrieved the gun, then the husband would have been the aggressor and her actions would have been protected under self defense laws.

In fact, I think this describes this whole thing pretty well:

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc1/1006199_10200929162845790_1080629891_n.jpg

[daboarder]

yeah basically social media has given rise to mob rule. people get worked up and form opinions without having access too or the understanding of all the appropriate information, those graphs are a perfect example, there is no record of how the data was obtained or any manipulation thereof.

either let your govenment decide of if there is an underlying issue of race in the law, or move somewhere nicer, like australia.

[eldargal]

Regarding the Alexander case remember her children were still in the house with a man who had just been threatening her and had a history of violence against women. Funnily enough the judge in the case refused to allow witnesses to testify against the chap regarding his history of violence. God forbid a jury be given reason to think the man she was defending herself against was violent, that might make them support the right of a woman to defend herself against an estranged husband.

Another thing to remember is that most female murder victims are murdered by their spouses, this just sends the message that women aren't allowed to defend themselves against their husbands, whatever the specifics of this particular case may be. It also says to men like this 'hey, if your wife does try and defend herself, chances are SHE will go to prison so go and beat her up'.

Also, she didn't get 20 years for firing warning shots which were a potential hazard, she was charged with attempted murder. Whether or not warning shots are dangerous or not isn't particularly relevant.

[daboarder]

Hispanic = of Spanish descent. Spain is in Europe. Depending on the country there is a little bit of other stuff mixed in there too but not as much as people might think, the native populations were reduced dramatically many centuries ago and some countries like Mexico had relatively few if any African slaves brought in. Unlike the Caribbean. Which isn't to say Hispanic people aren't discriminated against, at least in the US, but they aren't black

Anyway the Zimmerman thing has it's own topic now so let's keep most of the discussion on that subject there and keep the Feminist thread for more feminist related issues.

dragging this over from the other thread.

I don't see how them not being black should be an issue, of course I don't see how being black should be an issue either. As to Spain, well it is classified as hispanic not anglo/frank/norwegian for a reason, its not "white" in the sense that white is "european" it is a race with its own distinct genetic traits and in america has been subjected to the same racism as african americans.

to claim that this was a situation that can be defined as "black vs white" is being incredibly racist towards zimmerman himself, the man is Hispanic not anglo-saxon.

furthermore, spain is so far from being traditionally european, remember that the moors we're in spain.

[eldargal]

I was illustrating that there is a hierarchy of discrimination, with the victim very much on towards the bottom while Zimmerman was not. Being black is an issue because the statistics show that black men basically never get a successful defense under SYG while white men overwhelmingly do. The laws are being investigated officially for racial bias, this isn't something people just made up to complain about.

What is 'white' then? There is no white ethnicity, white is a colour and very few people are necessarily going to literally be white. I'm very pale and I still wouldn't define my skin as white, cream perhaps. It boils down to ethnicity and European ethnicity is considerably more 'acceptable' than African ethnicity. No one is being particularly racist towards Zimmerman, his ethnicity matters less than the victims. He is evidently not black and the victim was.

[daboarder]

I was illustrating that there is a hierarchy of discrimination, with the victim very much on towards the bottom while Zimmerman was not.

Bull****!

as someone with Scottish decent whose grandparents we're subjected to the same racism faced by italians and greeks when they emigrated to austrlia in the 60's bull****, and a person whose ancestors we're indentured convicts sent halfway around the world on a death mission BULL****!

edit: oh perhaps this post wasn't clear, my ancestors on my fathers side we're subject to the abuses of the transportation system in 1788. MY MOTHER and her parents were subject to the same racism faced by greeks and italian when she and my grandparents came here in the 60's.

[eldargal]

It may come as a surprise, but things have changed since transportation as a punishment ended in the 1830s.:rolleyes: Also, I strongly doubt your ancestors could have been legally worked to death or executed if they escaped

[daboarder]

Then you need to read far more about Australian history.

For a start,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fatal_Shore
http://www.australianhistoryresearch.info/the-first-fleet/
http://www.historyaustralia.org.au/ifhaa/ships/2ndfleet.htm

read it then come back to me.

[eldargal]

I don't give a **** to be frank, it is completely irrelevant to how minorities are persecuted in the US TODAY.

This is the issue here:
http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18tsr2xy87y01png/ku-xlarge.png
Not whether or not two hundred years ago Scots were discriminated against.

[daboarder]

fair enough, but if your going to make a statement like that then ensure that such an important aspect as its location and time frame is included, this conversation has been far ranging in subject matter and with a general statement it can appear as if you are saying that such a situation would be the same everywhere on the planet.

edit: And my parents are not scotts 200 years ago.

[eldargal]

Referring very specifically to the US in this context, which is sadly on the forefront of the fight against institutional sexism and racism at the moment primarily because it is one of the pre-eminent Western nations but also one of the most backwards in many ways.

[daboarder]

so we're good then?

yeah america can be pretty frakked up

[eldargal]

Yep, nothing personal or anything I just woke up cranky this* morning. To be honest while the Zimmerman case looks a bit dubious I'm more concerned with the Alexander case. While SYG is being investigated for racial bias few seem to give a crap about the messages that case sends to women and their abusive partners, however irresponsible firing warning shots may be.


*Like most mornings.

[daboarder]

you need to find a good partner (assuming you don't have one already) that way you can take out all that irritation on them first thing, pulling the blankets off the bed as you get up then watching their reaction is always entertaining.

[DarkLink]

Regarding the Alexander case remember her children were still in the house with a man who had just been threatening her and had a history of violence against women.

This whole claim has struck me as very, very he-said-she-said. My attempts at finding actual evidence to back her claim that he attacked her (and it's important to note that even if he had a history of violence, that doesn't matter if he didn't actually attack her at this particular time) or to back his claim that she started the fight have been drowned out by the peanut gallery.

Yes, I fully appreciate that, if he did attack her, then it's a pretty questionable ruling, though the rationale behind why SYG might not apply still stands. If he attacked her. I haven't seen any actual evidence that he did at this time. Presumably such evidence would have been presented in court. But we can't tell if the court made a good or bad call unless we actually see that evidence.

This is all about not jumping to conclusions. Before I decide on whether or not I feel Alexander (or Martin/Zimmerman) was short-changed by the judicial system, I want evidence. But most people seem to completely skip this step. They hear 'white guy shot black kid' or 'female victim of violence sentenced for defending herself from her abuser', and they don't bother to actually verify what actually happened.

[eldargal]

I actually disagree, if he had a history of violence (also worth noting the judge barred witnesses who were going to testify towards his violent behaviour) then by threatening her she may have felt that her life/safety was in danger. No one bats an eye when some guy carrying a gun shoots a mugger in self defense regardless of whether he had an intent to harm them, but for some reason when a wife defends herself it is a huge issue.

[scadugenga]

Also, she didn't get 20 years for firing warning shots which were a potential hazard, she was charged with attempted murder. Whether or not warning shots are dangerous or not isn't particularly relevant.

Incorrect. She was charged, and found guilty of three counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. The same charges leveled against Ronald Thompson in 2009.

DL hit the mark when he discussed the issue with her leaving the threatening situation, retrieving a weapon, and then re-entering a confrontation with her husband. That is where she lost any right to SYG. She was already safe. He didn't follow her. Now, if she shot and killed him, he wouldn't be able to give his "side" of the story, and she likely would've been free.

It should also be pointed out that Alexander, like Thompson in 2009, was offered a plea bargain to plead guilty for a lesser crime and no more than a 3 year sentence. Both Thompson and Alexander rejected the deal, maintained their innocence, and were later found guilty and sentenced to 20 years.

The same State's Attorney handled Thompson's prosecution, Alexander's prosecution, and Zimmerman's prosecution. Whether she has any racial bias--I don't know. But a district judge threw out Thompson's conviction/sentence, and the State's Attorney appealed that, won, and Thompson's 20 year sentence was reinstated. So I'm going to look askance at any allegation she's racist.

Also, as part of the Alexander hearing, Corey (the State's Attorney) revealed: “When she [Alexander] discharges a firearm in the direction of human beings, the legislature says it’s dangerous,” Corey said, according to the Florida Times-Union. “And one of the reasons is because the bullet went through the wall where one of the children was standing. It happened to deflect up into the ceiling, but if it had deflected down it could have hit one of the children.”

[Wolfshade]

Sorry if this seems a little disjointed here but is there an option for a Jury to return a "not proven" verdict?, over here you can be found guilty, not guilty or not proven with a subtle difference between not guilty and not proven.

[eldargal]

One of the news articles I read said she was charged with attempted murder, bah. Regardless, her children were in the house with an abusive partner, it's completely disingenuous to say she was safe just because she was in the garage, she may well have thought he was going to follow her or harm the children. The message this sends is still that if you abuse your wife and she tries to scare you off, she will probably go to prison and that if you try and defend yourself from an abusive spouse you will likely go to prison. That's what people are angry about. Couple it with the perceived parralels with the Zimmerman case and people feel like white men have a get out of jail free card.

So, it's fine to discharge a firearm into someone but not at them, that makes perfect sense.:rolleyes: That';s really the trouble here, she would most likely be in less trouble if she had shot and killed him.

Also I doubt the individual is racist, institutional racism persists even when individuals are not racist, that is why it is so difficult to root out.

[scadugenga]

It also doesn't help that her husband initially gave a statement that confirmed he was an abusive SOB and would've likely hurt her, and then recanted the statement. Talk about muddying the waters.

Should've just shot him.

[eldargal]

Nor that the judge barred the testimony of witnesses who knew him and had witnesses his violence towards women. Because making the abusive husband look abusive to the jury might convince them that she acted reasonably given the circumstances, and we can't have that.:rolleyes:

[scadugenga]

Which, while it does show him as being a complete eff-tard and jerk, has nothing to do with her aggravated assault on him.

If she was in direct threat of her life? Yes, it would be appropriate. However, she left the situation--IE, she was not in direct threat, and then chose to re-enter the situation with a gun and threaten him.

That's what she was arrested and tried for.

[eldargal]

Of course it does. Women who suffer from sustained abuse from their spouse are not necessarily thinking rationally and often live in fear of their lives (for good reason) and those of their children. Fleeing to the garage is hardly the same as leaving the situation. He was nearby, her children were with him and there are many cases of abusive husbands killing their children to punish the wives. Victims of prolonged abuse do not necessarily think rationally in these situations either.

[Kirsten]

the evidence/statements that can be banned from a trial can make a massive difference and be disastrous to a fair trial. a friend of my mums was murdered by her estranged husband after years of threats. throughout the trial he spoke on and on about how much he loved his wife and never wanted to hurt her etc. etc. and nobody was allowed to gainsay him. in the end he was convicted of manslaughter and given two years, released after eighteen months for stabbing her repeatedly to death.

[eldargal]

Doesn't surprise me. I don't think people realize that while a man might pick up a knife and kill his spouse in a fit of anger for a woman to rid herself of an abusive spouse often takes a degree of forethought as they tend to be weaker and considerably brutalized.

It is not beyond the realms of possibility that the gun was hidden in the garage so she had a means to defend herself, but god help a woman who tries to defend herself against an abusive husband, even if you don't end up dead you'll end up in prison.

[Psychosplodge]

Of course it does. Women who suffer from sustained abuse from their spouse are not necessarily thinking rationally and often live in fear of their lives (for good reason) and those of their children.

And don't forget logic and rational for a woman are all other the place for several weeks a month.
Unless bribed with chocolate. :D

[YorkNecromancer]

Saw this. Think it's relevant.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BPKkb85CYAAqlu7.png:large

[Earl Harbinger]

I don't give a **** to be frank, it is completely irrelevant to how minorities are persecuted in the US TODAY.

This is the issue here:
http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18tsr2xy87y01png/ku-xlarge.png
Not whether or not two hundred years ago Scots were discriminated against.

That is a completely useless and deliberately slanted chart. There is a world of difference between a killing and a killing that leads to a trial where the defendent pleads self defense. If it was a graphic showing the ethnic breakdown of successful vs unsuccessful cases of self defense defenses then it might have meaning. The simple fact that the majority of black on black killings and black on white killings don't lead to trials where the defendent successfully gets a self defense verdict has nothing to do with racism and everything to do with the particulars of the cases. The majority of all murder trials don't end in justifiable homicide rulings due to the inherent nature of murder.

[Earl Harbinger]

In April of 2009 a black man in the town of Greece in upstate New York shot and killed a white teenage whom he suspected of breaking into cars in the neighborhood with other teen accomplices. The black man claimed self defense in shooting the unarmed white 16 year old and after 19 hours of jury deliberations the verdict was an acquittal. This was in 2009, Barack Obama was president, Eric Holder was the Attorney General, but the case didn't get national headlines. If one wanted to argue that the Trayvon Martin death proved the US was racist I can make the same arguments that the Scott case proves that the US isn't racist but both arguments would be illogical in the extreme since a single local crime isn't an accurate microcosm of national race relations.

http://rochester.ynn.com/content/top_stories/490926/jury-finds-roderick-scott-not-guilty/

Not guilty: The verdict in the manslaughter trial of Roderick Scott. After more than 19 hours of deliberations over two days, a jury acquitted the Greece man in the shooting death of Christopher Cervini, 17, last April.

"I just want to say thank you to the people who believed in me, who stood by me,” Scott said following the verdict. “I still have my regrets for the Cervini family; it's still an unfortunate situation for them. I am happy that at least this chapter is over."

As deliberations dragged on over two days and the jury asked for testimony to be read back, Scott admits he didn't know how it would all turn out.

"I was nervous of course,” he said. “You never know what direction this whole thing is going to turn, so I have no idea. But it worked out and I feel that justice (was) served today."

Cervini's family members say justice wasn't served. They say Christopher was murdered in cold blood, that he'd never been in trouble and Scott acted as judge, jury and executioner.

"The message is that we can all go out and get guns and feel anybody that we feel is threatening us and lie about the fact,” said Jim Cervini, Christopher’s father. “My son never threatened anybody. He was a gentle child, his nature was gentle, he was a good person and he was never, ever arrested for anything, and has never been in trouble. He was 16 years and four months old, and he was slaughtered."

Scott says he acted in self defense when he confronted Cervini and two others saying they were stealing from neighbors cars. He told them he had a gun and ordered them to freeze and wait for police.

Scott says he shot Cervini twice when the victim charged toward him yelling he was going to get Scott.

"How can this happen to a beautiful, sweet child like that?” asked Cervini’s aunt Carol Cervini. “All he wanted to do was go home. And then for them to say, he was saying, 'Please don't kill me. I'm just a kid,' and he just kept on shooting him."

Scott says the last seven months have been difficult for him and his family. If he could go back to the events in the early morning hours of April 4, there are things he says he would do differently.

"If it meant a person not losing their life, absolutely,” he said. “Would I still have tried to stop what was going on? That I would have done. But if I knew ahead of time that I could do something to help somebody from losing their life, I don't want anyone to lose their life."

Scott says the first thing he was going to do was go home and get a good night sleep. When asked if he'll continue living in his current home, which is just one street away from the Cervini's, he said “for the time being.”

[Earl Harbinger]

So local and federal authorities investigate the possibility of racial motivation behind Zimmerman's actions and don't find any evidence to support such a claim. Yet, media personalities and pundits who haven't done anything close to the level of investigation as the authorities adamantly proclaim racism as vociferously as possible. Definitely something worth pondering.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/07/12/155918/more-evidence-released-in-trayvon.html#.UeM9mT7DVoY

After interviewing nearly three dozen people in the George Zimmerman murder case, the FBI found no evidence that racial bias was a motivating factor in the shooting of Trayvon Martin, records released Thursday show.

Even the lead detective in the case, Sanford Det. Chris Serino, told agents that he thought Zimmerman profiled Trayvon because of his attire and the circumstances — but not his race.

Serino saw Zimmerman as “having little hero complex, but not as a racist.”

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/07/12/155918/more-evidence-released-in-trayvon.html#.UeM9mT7DVoY#storylink=cpy

[Earl Harbinger]

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/07/13/Media-Zimmerman-Coverage-Rap-Sheet

http://criminaldefenseblog.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-embarrassment-of-george-zimmerman.html

Well supported critiques of how the media failed to accurately present the facts and truths of the Zimmerman case in an objective manner and instead omitted facts, fabricated/doctored evidence and lied about the events.

[Psychosplodge]

Incorrect. She was charged, and found guilty of three counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. The same charges leveled against Ronald Thompson in 2009.

DL hit the mark when he discussed the issue with her leaving the threatening situation, retrieving a weapon, and then re-entering a confrontation with her husband. That is where she lost any right to SYG. She was already safe. He didn't follow her. Now, if she shot and killed him, he wouldn't be able to give his "side" of the story, and she likely would've been free.

It should also be pointed out that Alexander, like Thompson in 2009, was offered a plea bargain to plead guilty for a lesser crime and no more than a 3 year sentence. Both Thompson and Alexander rejected the deal, maintained their innocence, and were later found guilty and sentenced to 20 years.

The same State's Attorney handled Thompson's prosecution, Alexander's prosecution, and Zimmerman's prosecution. Whether she has any racial bias--I don't know. But a district judge threw out Thompson's conviction/sentence, and the State's Attorney appealed that, won, and Thompson's 20 year sentence was reinstated. So I'm going to look askance at any allegation she's racist.

Also, as part of the Alexander hearing, Corey (the State's Attorney) revealed: “When she [Alexander] discharges a firearm in the direction of human beings, the legislature says it’s dangerous,” Corey said, according to the Florida Times-Union. “And one of the reasons is because the bullet went through the wall where one of the children was standing. It happened to deflect up into the ceiling, but if it had deflected down it could have hit one of the children.”


This is the reason for that the womans sentence. The american system that aims to deny you a trial. Where if you don't take a plea bargain the prosecutor pushes for the heaviest sentence if you're convicted.

[scadugenga]

This is the reason for that the womans sentence. The american system that aims to deny you a trial. Where if you don't take a plea bargain the prosecutor pushes for the heaviest sentence if you're convicted.

No, the sentence levied was the minimum for the crime they were convicted.

Ten years for the aggravated assault charges plus ten years mandatory for using a gun in the act of committing a crime.

When you're found guilty in Florida they crack down on you for using a gun.

[Psychosplodge]

Yes indeed, but they tried them for attempted murder instead of what ever charge they asked them to plead guilty to. If you go to trial they try for maximum sentancing, to punish you for not pleading guilty.

[chicop76]

For the alexander case in Florida the gun laws is very strict.

10 years mininum for a gun involved incident.
20 years mininum if you discharged your weapon.

They gave her the minimum amount of time. That is why she should had taken the 3 year plea bargin.

However the more I read on her case, the more I think she was in the wrong.

Thinking about it a lot:
1. If she had time to run to the garage grab her weapon an come back she could had called the police.
2. Obvious Domestic dispute call the police.
3. If she did left and grab her gun she shouldn't had fired warning shots.
4. Going to his home trying to spend the night while she has been legaly told not to be arund him.

There is more, but for the most part she would had been fine if she didn't firewarning shots.

[Psychosplodge]

That's what I'm saying. Why didn't they try her for whatever offence they asked to plead guilty to that would have got a three year sentence?
Why should you plead guilty to something when you feel you're innocent?

I don't really know about this case specifically it just feels plea bargaining is taking away you're right to a fair trial.

[Nabterayl]

Psycho,

A plea bargain can't take away your right to a fair trial - nobody can make you sign one. They can point out that you'd be an idiot not to take the deal, and they can even be right (there's no guarantee that a fair trial is in your best interests), but they can't make you take it.

As for 3 years vs. 10 years ... I note that the judge himself noted at the time that he would not have imposed a 10 year sentence if he had a choice, so that's something. But in general, remember that a plea bargain is a description of the odds for both sides. The prosecution takes the penalty it thinks it could get, multiplies it by the chance it thinks it will get it (always < 1.0), and comes up with an offer. The defense takes the penalty it thinks it could get, multiplies it by the chance it thinks it will get it, and compares that to the offer. If the two match, or if the defense's number is higher than the prosecution's offer, then it makes sense to take the deal.

You don't have to, of course, and utilitarian calculations often seem less weighty when the stigma of a criminal conviction is involved. But that's the mental process involved - which is why, if the deal is not taken, it makes sense that the conviction is always a greater penalty than that offered by the plea bargain.

[Psychosplodge]

It seems dodgy to me.

[chicop76]

It seems dodgy to me.

It's 3 vs 20 years. I have to look againd or reread where I missed 3 vs 10 years.

It's really not.

It's like this.

You commit x crime. The minimum for x crime is 20 years with the max of 30 years.

If you win you go free, if you lose you have to serve 20-30 years.

The plea bargin is basically looking at the odds you can go free. In short the worst your odds are the bargin is more attractive the better your odds are than the least of a reason to take one. It's basically a way that both sides win. Also it's a way to prevent you from serving more time than any one should. Note plea bargins is not always an option. In this case it was an option since the alternative for Alexander seemed to be extreme and the law is the law. The bargin was her out which I bet her lawyer probablly told her she should take it and not fight the system.

By her not taking the bargin she pretty much spat in the fce of everyone trying to be nice to her. Also it causes the case to be dragged on and now you are wasting the juries time.

Keep in mind they didn't have to plea bargin at all. Also bargins are used for criminals to get less time if they help with other cases and or do things to redeem their evil ways.

Not saying she should had took the bargin, but her lawyer should had pointed out from a legal stand point what her chances of winning was. With all the things thrown at her her lawyer should had told her to take the bargin, heck it's her lawyer taking to the other side that agreed on the bargin before it was presented to her anyway. In her situation she shold had taken the bargin.

I do see your point though. If they can lower her time via bargin. How come they simply can't lower her time period. Legally the bargin may be the only way to do that. I'll be lying if I said otherwise.

[Nabterayl]

It seems dodgy to me.
Why? I mean that as neutrally-curious as possible. Is it because you don't think prosecutors should be allowed to settle for a definite conviction of some length as opposed to always rolling the dice?

[chicop76]

Why? I mean that as neutrally-curious as possible. Is it because you don't think prosecutors should be allowed to settle for a definite conviction of some length as opposed to always rolling the dice?


It seems dodgy to me.

http://reason.com/archives/2013/01/02/plead-guilty-or-go-to-prison-for-life

Here is an article for you to read.

Also after being on some state and federal sites a judge can't diviate from a minimum. Not all laws are like that and he can determine what or how much time some one can spend, but laws like porn, guns, drugs for example state and federal law have a minnimum and a maximum and they are all harsh.

Like in the above situation the time is soo harsh you are forced to plea bargin and say you are guilty. It makes the case speedier and saves time and money.

In the Alexandria case you have 20 years hitting you or you can deal for 3 saying you are guilty. In a way it is forcing you to plea guilty. Firing a warning shot like I said could had endanger her children and againg gun safety classes highly discourage you to fir warning shots.

[Psychosplodge]

By her not taking the bargin she pretty much spat in the fce of everyone trying to be nice to her. Also it causes the case to be dragged on and now you are wasting the juries time.

Keep in mind they didn't have to plea bargin at all. Also bargins are used for criminals to get less time if they help with other cases and or do things to redeem their evil ways.


I do see your point though. If they can lower her time via bargin. How come they simply can't lower her time period. Legally the bargin may be the only way to do that. I'll be lying if I said otherwise.

I'm not sure I'd agree a definite jail sentence, as opposed to a possible one, especially if I felt I was innocent was being nice.

Criminals trading time off for information leading to convictions of others is a necessary evil and slightly different.

I assumed she was having to plead guilty to a lesser charge of some sort that carried a lighter tariff. if it's the only way to impose a shorter than mandatory minimum for the same offence that seems even worse.


Why? I mean that as neutrally-curious as possible. Is it because you don't think prosecutors should be allowed to settle for a definite conviction of some length as opposed to always rolling the dice?

I'm not sure. It just doesn't feel right. Also see above, if they're asking to plead guilty to a lesser offence that carries a shorter tariff, why do they charge with the most serious offence they can find if you won't agree to that? it doesn't seem fair. Why not take you to court for that offence instead? Not sure 100% that's how they work it. (here you'll often find people will go to court charged with x offence and be found guilty of the lesser offence of y, I think they also shorten sentences for a guilty plea but I don't think it is bargained for in advance).


Firing a warning shot like I said could had endanger her children and again gun safety classes highly discourage you to fire warning shots.
.

I personally don't agree with warning shots, and certainly not anywhere that's not the floor.

[chicop76]

When you go to court they usually throw the book at you. At first you think you are going to jail for x and find you have j-z offenses against you. More than likely they will find you guilty of maybe 2 out of 10. The plea bargin usually take the lesser and let you not be trialed on the other 8 or 9 charges against you. If you don't take the bargin than you will have to fight all 10 charges.

It is common practice to go with the highest and work from there. With Zimmerman I was hoping for a down grade since he wouldn't be found guilty on the charge he had. When the judge felt it would be a waste of time and money which she probably was correct I knew he would get off. Hince no bargin here since he can get off so easily.