Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman Tangent #654

As long as checkpoints exist, Police. Do. Not. Have. A Firm. Grasp. On. Probable. Cause. Checkpoints are a bullshit work around on the 4th amendment. So are pulling people over for "a tail light out' or "your tags are expired" or my favorite, "you crossed over the line."The first two are provable, but a lame excuse for searching people, the last is totally bullshit and the cop's word over mine. Let's also not forget the fact that I don't have to tell a cop where I'm going, where I've been and I don't have to roll my window down all of the way to talk to them. They also don't have to approach every person with their hand hovering over their gun as if we're all potential terrorists or something.

I don't have the time or inclination to teach a class on Warrantless Arrest or Probable Cause to the trained professionals I deal with every day. I have much less desire to do so here. However, don't sweat it, champ. Any case you're involved in would be tried in Juvenile Court and the records would be sealed anyway.

Again, you are either misunderstanding or misusing "irrelevant."

The color of George Zimmerman's shirt is irrelevant. It has no bearing to the legality of the shooting whatsoever.

Whether Zimmerman was the original aggressor does have legal relevance.

If he had said, or the jury believed, that he in fact jumped Martin, was losing the struggle and then shot while fearing for his life, the jury could have come with a different verdict.

2a does not mandate that Zimmerman was justified in using lethal force regardless of whether he was the initial aggressor. The jury would have to find that the force Martin was using was so great that Zimmerman reasonably believed he was in imminent danger of death/GBH and that he had exhausted every means of escape. Now it's perfectly reasonable to believe that, especially under the version of what happened as Zimmerman tells it and as somewhat confirmed by a witness. According to that version, Zimmerman is on the ground and getting his head bashed by Martin. But a reasonable jury could decide that Zimmerman's account is not true in key respects. Or it could decide that that Zimmerman had a belief that he was at risk of death/GBH, but that belief was not reasonable. Or it could decide that Zimmerman's fear of death/GBH was reasonable but he had not exhausted every avenue of escape. Or of course, the jury could engage in jury nullification and not follow the law as written/intended.

This isn't me trying to argue black is white or anything of that sort.

Ultimately, it is not a matter of "historical fact" how or why the jury in this case decided to acquit Zimmerman, only that they did so.

God, that was like the maximum amount of ownage possible in a single paragraph.

You are still arguing theory.

I'm arguing historical outcome.

The theory that Zimmerman was the aggressor became irrelevant as soon as it was rejected as unprovable. It was rejected almost a decade ago, specifically 9 years ago, Aprl 11th, 2012.

We do know about the internal deliberations of the jury, because two jurors gave interviews concerning what happened. Both agree that initially 9 jurors wanted to acquit, 2 wanted to convict on manslaughter, 1 on 2nd degree murder.

The person who wanted to convict on 2nd degree murder is one of the ones that gave an interview, and she has publicly stated that while she believed Zimmerman acted with malice and was responsible for the death, under Florida law that charge was unsustainable because that belief was unprovable considering the facts as given in the case. Both jurors stated that over 16 hours of deliberations they all came to that conclusion and therefore gave a unanimous not guilty verdict.

And the overwhelming majority of legal analysts for the networks covering the case agreed that was the correct outcome based on the evidence presented and the law as it was written.

So yes, it is a matter of fact a decade later on not only what the outcome was, but what guided the deliberations. It's called primary source material, and historians base history on it.

Thank you. I (obviously) fall on the side of completely disbelieving every word out of Zimmerman's mouth. To me, it's obvious he's lying. I ... previously, could not ... perceive any scenario in which someone actually believes Zimmerman. So, ... maybe anyone who disagrees with me doesn't hate teenagers (many people do).

Still ..., the guy is obviously lying.

Just because something is "unprovable" doesn't mean it's irrelevant and should be rejected.

Prove to me murder is wrong. I'm 100% certain Zimmerman committed murder. Yet, here you are, trying to prove his innocence.

Acknowledging that guilt cannot be proven is not the same as proclaiming innocence.

It says a lot about how society is so quick to consider the fear that Zimmerman was experiencing when Martin finally confronted him and think nothing of the fear that a dead kid had as he was being stalked by a creepy ass adult with a gun. HE WAS A KID! He was being accosted by a strange adult for absolutely nothing. And he was killed for trying to protect himself.

You don't know that, and there is no evidence to support it. It's what you WANT to believe.

Isn't that convenient?

Have one of your strange creepy ass friends stalk your kid around town while staring him down and ask your kid how he felt. Just for kicks, get one of your overweight fully bearded black friends to do it. I don't have to assume how Martin felt.

Understanding how he felt and accepting as justification to initiate violence are two VERY different things.

I don't have to prove his innocence. A trial already decided he could not be convicted. That's why he's walking around right now.

But we don't convict people based on abstractions or our feelings, no matter how certain we are of them. Whether or not murder is wrong isn't the point. The State's case was insufficient to earn a conviction. The evidence was lacking. There was reasonable doubt, and the jury was obliged to acquit. Does that mean a murderer got away with it? I personally think so. But mob justice isn't the answer.

I'm not saying Martin did the right thing. I'm saying I can see how he felt the need to protect himself from some creepy ass adult stalker. It's sad that the laws didn't protect this kid.

This makes me cry every time I think of it.

Then quit telling me the fucker is innocent. Just because he can't be proven guilty does not mean he was innocent.

Again, there is no evidence either way who initiated the violence. and with the 80/20 rule, just because something happens most of the time doesn't mean it happens all the time.

And right there is my problem.

Clearly after Martin fractured Zimmerman's nose and gave him two black eyes he could have broken off and made it to his father's back door, which was a few seconds away.

He decided to stay and hurt Zimmerman. He had Zimmerman pinned to the ground when he was shot.

It's a sad issue all the way around, but regardless of what else happened that night, Martin decided to be cruel and inflict harm after he could have disengaged. That's the final decision that not only led to his death, but ensured Zimmerman would be acquitted.

The media caused this narrative to be twisted, and in general I'm pretty supportive of our news networks. But in this case two different major news networks were caught manipulating recordings to 'enhance' the story.

And yeah, I fell for that narrative too - because it is often the truth, and I had no initial reason to think otherwise.

Because there are quite a few other egregious cases like this I still support Black Lives Matter.

But I had to accept that the proper legal outcome happened here, regardless of how tragic it all was.

As Raoul already stated, another jury could have looked at the same evidence/trial and been convinced beyond the shadow of a doubt.

Despite what we were taught, the US judicial system sucks. It might be the best one, but it still sucks. and don't fucking tell me Zimmerman is "innocent" just because 12 people think a dead kid is just fine.

So if I was the one beating the hell out of Martin, had him trapped under me, and was trying to crack his skull open, should Martin go to jail if he shot me?

This is the relevant part. Despite his size, Martin was still a child. 17 years old is legally a child. Psychologically, his brain would not have fully matured for another 8 years.

This is the part that people are just not getting.

At 17, his decision making abilities are not the same as an adult.

That does not dismiss his guilt and yes, he should have been punished. But, he did not deserve to die. And he would not have been put in that situation had Zimmerman kept his fucking ass in the car and waited for police.

yes.

Why is this a difficult concept?

Because it violates self-defense justification in all 50 states and 8 territories that comprise the US.

And the fact you keep harping on Martin's age made me question if the identities of the two individuals were more important than their actions.

But OK, you just don't believe that the law that every state follows is valid.

The American legal system isn't perfect, but it's better than mob justice. And innocent isn't the same as not guilty.

You say another jury could have looked at the evidence and convicted Zimmerman. Probably. But this jury didn't. That doesn't make the verdict less legally valid than the convicting jury, does it? Absolutely no one besides George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin knows what happened that night. And the latter is dead. Florida has shitty Stand Your Ground laws. The jury did its job. That's it.

Agreed. But Zimmerman wasn't legally obligated to wait for the police.

I agree with all of that. Certainly Zimmerman made a mistake when he left the car, but it's possible he was returning to it when the incident happened. We don't know.

But I do put far more of the moral blame on the guy that beat the hell out of him and was continuing his attack after nearly 40 seconds of Zimmerman screaming for help.

I disagree with Obama - that's not my kid. No way my kid would be that cruel.

I am very leery of the concept of "self-defense" in cases like this. An intruder breaks into your house and is intent on injuring you, then yes, you have the right to defend yourself.

This case is not that cut and dry. Why do you think Martin didn't have the right to defend himself?

We do not know what happened in that ... alleyway. We only have Zimmerman's word and of course he's going to say he was defending himself.

That in and of itself, doesn't make him a liar.

But, he went into that alley right after saying "im tired of these [...] getting away with [....]" (don't remember the exact verbiage) and he had already make like 600 calls to the police department since the previous September. He was intent on stopping Martin regardless of whether or not Martin was innocent.

Stop looking at this from Zimmerman's perspective and look at it from Martin's.

My assumption is that your child is white, middle class, loving family, happy home-life.

Not everyone has that.

Some kids are very angry.

As I said, that doesn't make it right. It means, he was a kid and did the best he could with the cards he was given. It's a shame Zimmerman took that away from him.