Teenager shot/killed while Tweek's hero gets off free

[Ksandra]

Disagree with what? Innocent until proven guilty? Or the part where there wasn't enough evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to convict? Or just Florida law in general which they fully enforced?

^

The jury's decision imo was 100% correct given the evidence (or lack there of) in the trial. The defense, and even the prosecutors, gave more than enough reasonable doubt. Jurors aren't supposed to watch tv, read the news, etc. related to the incident. They are supposed to only go off on what was presented in court. The fault, if any, likes with the prosecution for not presenting their case strongly enough.

[Byrthnoth]

tbqh, I don't think that reading papers and watching the news would have pushed them towards the guilty verdict.

...but I'm still surprised that he didn't get manslaughter at least. I don't think the defense successfully showed that Trayvon was motivated to do Zimmerman (or anyone) great bodily harm / kill him, so lethal self defense was not justified in my opinion.

[Correction]

...but I'm still surprised that he didn't get manslaughter at least. I don't think the defense successfully showed that Trayvon was motivated to do Zimmerman (or anyone) great bodily harm / kill him, so lethal self defense was not justified in my opinion.

Evidently Florida law has a unique loophole that let Zimmerman walk even on manslaughter charges.

[Ksandra]

tbqh, I don't think that reading papers and watching the news would have pushed them towards the guilty verdict.

Seems to have worked well on a lot of outsiders looking in, so idk about that.

And ya, I think this more has to do with needing to look into FL laws. I do hope stand your ground gets looked into (yes, yes it wasn't used in court, but it was a talking point enough outside of it). And it can't be denied that things might not have gone down the way they did if zimmerman thought he'd get into trouble.

[Denchi]

Question for people....

So from what I understand, in the case of a fight/scuffle/confrontation, the law is set up in a way to punish people for things they do in a way that's proportionate to the severity of the aggression. So, for example, if someone stomps on my foot, if I shoot him dead, I'm in trouble. If someone starts stabbing me with a knife, and I shoot him, I'm probably justified in doing so.

I think in all cases these are good things to discern, obviously. But when I think about what I would do in those situations, I get a little weary with how much the law can potentially protect an aggressor. I feel like as soon as someone makes the decisions to invade my personal space and start beating me up, they should know that they're signed up to accept whatever happens to them. I really, really dislike the idea that I, as a potential victim, would need to have the state of mind/wherewithal to discern what kind of trouble I'm in before responding. I think the aggressor needs to take more responsibility for the fact that they are going out of their way to hurt someone, and they probably shouldn't do that. If there were potentially a case where someone picks a fight with me in a bar, and say I'm carrying a firearm, and it's this huge strong guy and he's starts wailing on me....I might fear for my life and shoot the guy. I don't know this guy's intentions, he's potentially bigger than me, he may have a weapon, if I get knocked out, who knows what they'll do to me then, I may not be conscience enough to discern what kind of trouble I'm in before reacting. I'd like to reserve the right to get someone off of me in whatever way necessary to protect myself.

I'd like to take this moment to clarify that I'm willing to admit that I'm wrong on this, it's just a thought I've had since following this case. But I just feel like more of a precedent needs to be set to make it clear that it's not ok to start beating people up. If you feel like being a tough guy and starting something, then deal with what happens to you if someone gets the best of you. If you don't want to be killed or seriously injured, don't fight people.

I guess the question is, am I alone in thinking like this? I just think people who are so inclined to physically harm someone else probably should reconsider. And if they do, they might need to pay the consequences.

More on topic...as it relates to this case....it's obviously one of those grey areas. But it does seem clear (to me anyways) that Trayvon initiated physical contact, while Zimmerman could be faulted for creating an unsafe/weary situation by following him. Zimmerman probably shouldn't have been following this kid, as the police were on their way. But I don't think he was the one who initiated the physical confrontation. During the confrontation, if it's true that Trayvon had the upper hand and was kicking Zimmerman's ass, and reaching for his gun, then I can't really fault Zimmerman for shooting Trayvon and protecting himself. I think it's reasonable to assume that Zimmerman wasn't looking for a fight, but Trayvon brought one to him. There's plenty that you could fault Zimmerman for, but I don't see how it could be a clear homicide case. So all of this "outrage" really seems like emotional hooplah.

Now if my interpretation of the events is totally false, well then.....shit. If Zimmerman had it in his mind that he wanted to kill some kid, if he was the "tough guy" and the aggressor, and approached him with his gun drawn or something that indicated he meant harm, then that really sucks, and I'd be outraged, but the evidence doesn't seem to suggest that. If there were evidence to suggest that, then I think he'd be locked up.

And maybe that's another good question.....perhaps everything I've just said is all bullshit and stupid, because there's clear evidence that Zimmerman had ill intentions and was the aggressor. There's been talk that the prosecutors did a terrible job. What evidence am I not seeing that would change my mind about the way things went down?

[Ksandra]

Not quoting that since it's long, but who started the assault first is very very much important in regards to laws. In this particular case it was a problem since no one but Trayvon and Zimmerman were there so there was just no way to know who started it.

The whole concept of stand your ground is to support that idea that if you are threatened you can take action. The problem is that action can include shooting and killing someone, which people don't like because 1. it could be way beyond what the assault was in the first place (ie. someone bumps into a person, that person shoots them), and 2. it gives people the sense that they can whip out their gun for anything and just claim "I was scared!"

[Denchi]

But in this case, it looked like Zimmerman was legit getting beat up? At least he looked a little beat up in the photos. Unless they were self-inflicted?

[Ksandra]

But in this case, it looked like Zimmerman was legit getting beat up?

I think there's a split idea on this one, actually. He had blood on him, but I don't think any bruises. He could have had just one punch in the nose for all we know. And we have no way of knowing if he attacked Trayvon first and that was Trayvon defending himself, or if Trayvon saw Zimmerman following and attacked him for it.

This is really kind of a hard case to talk about what's justified for defending because we will probably never even remotely have a clue as to what actually happened that night.

[SephYuyX]

But in this case, it looked like Zimmerman was legit getting beat up? At least he looked a little beat up in the photos. Unless they were self-inflicted?

They could tell by the angle and brusing pattern that the blows originated from a black man.

[kuronosan]

I think there's a split idea on this one, actually. He had blood on him, but I don't think any bruises. He could have had just one punch in the nose for all we know. And we have no way of knowing if he attacked Trayvon first and that was Trayvon defending himself, or if Trayvon saw Zimmerman following and attacked him for it.

This is really kind of a hard case to talk about what's justified for defending because we will probably never even remotely have a clue as to what actually happened that night.

2015 Best Seller: "If I Did It 2: If I Shot That Black Kid Because I Followed Him & He Discovered Me, a George Zimmerman Story"

Aren't black people being racist when they call Zimmerman white?

He is white.

[Serra]

It sounds like you're talking about self defense, and there is a precedence for using that as a defense for murder. IE, if someone is trying to smash your head with a baseball bat and you shoot and kill them, your lawyer can argue that it was not unreasonable for you to believe your life was in danger, and therefore shooting this person was the only option available for you to save your own life.

More on topic...as it relates to this case....it's obviously one of those grey areas. But it does seem clear (to me anyways) that Trayvon initiated physical contact, while Zimmerman could be faulted for creating an unsafe/weary situation by following him. Zimmerman probably shouldn't have been following this kid, as the police were on their way. But I don't think he was the one who initiated the physical confrontation. During the confrontation, if it's true that Trayvon had the upper hand and was kicking Zimmerman's ass, and reaching for his gun, then I can't really fault Zimmerman for shooting Trayvon and protecting himself. I think it's reasonable to assume that Zimmerman wasn't looking for a fight, but Trayvon brought one to him. There's plenty that you could fault Zimmerman for, but I don't see how it could be a clear homicide case. So all of this "outrage" really seems like emotional hooplah.

Now if my interpretation of the events is totally false, well then.....shit. If Zimmerman had it in his mind that he wanted to kill some kid, if he was the "tough guy" and the aggressor, and approached him with his gun drawn or something that indicated he meant harm, then that really sucks, and I'd be outraged, but the evidence doesn't seem to suggest that. If there were evidence to suggest that, then I think he'd be locked up.

You say it's clear, but that's the whole issue with this case, nothing is really clear except for the fact that Zimmerman shot Martin. As Ksandra said, the only people who were there were Martin and Zimmerman, so no one else can say "it's obvious that this happened." Maybe Zimmerman was just following Martin who got the jump on him and Zimmerman felt his life was in danger as Martin was beating on him so he shot Martin. That's certainly a plausible story. On the other hand, it's also possible that Zimmerman was following him, grabbed him, thought he was a criminal, and started attacking him. Martin feared for his life, fought back, started to overpower him, Zimmerman feared for his life, and shot Martin. That's also a plausible story.

[Denchi]

I think there's a split idea on this one, actually. He had blood on him, but I don't think any bruises. He could have had just one punch in the nose for all we know. And we have no way of knowing if he attacked Trayvon first and that was Trayvon defending himself, or if Trayvon saw Zimmerman following and attacked him for it.

This is really kind of a hard case to talk about what's justified for defending because we will probably never even remotely have a clue as to what actually happened that night.

Which is where I stand. There isn't clear enough evidence to prove that Zimmerman killed Trayvon in cold blood. It's terrible not knowing, but that's just kind of the way it goes. In some cases, there just isn't enough evidence to convict.

[Denchi]

You say it's clear, but that's the whole issue with this case, nothing is really clear except for the fact that Zimmerman shot Martin. As Ksandra said, the only people who were there were Martin and Zimmerman, so no one else can say "it's obvious that this happened." Maybe Zimmerman was just following Martin who got the jump on him and Zimmerman felt his life was in danger as Martin was beating on him so he shot Martin. That's certainly a plausible story. On the other hand, it's also possible that Zimmerman was following him, grabbed him, thought he was a criminal, and started attacking him. Martin feared for his life, fought back, started to overpower him, Zimmerman feared for his life, and shot Martin. That's also a plausible story.

Correct. When I say "It's clear," I don't really mean it's clear, poor use of words. I agree with you and KSandra that it's unclear. Being unclear, it makes sense that you wouldn't convict him of murder.

[Ksandra]

Which is where I stand. There isn't clear enough evidence to prove that Zimmerman killed Trayvon in cold blood. It's terrible not knowing, but that's just kind of the way it goes. In some cases, there just isn't enough evidence to convict.

And that's why most of us say it wasn't the jury's fault. However I was mostly commenting on your part of your post here:

I think in all cases these are good things to discern, obviously. But when I think about what I would do in those situations, I get a little weary with how much the law can potentially protect an aggressor. I feel like as soon as someone makes the decisions to invade my personal space and start beating me up, they should know that they're signed up to accept whatever happens to them. I really, really dislike the idea that I, as a potential victim, would need to have the state of mind/wherewithal to discern what kind of trouble I'm in before responding. I think the aggressor needs to take more responsibility for the fact that they are going out of their way to hurt someone, and they probably shouldn't do that. If there were potentially a case where someone picks a fight with me in a bar, and say I'm carrying a firearm, and it's this huge strong guy and he's starts wailing on me....I might fear for my life and shoot the guy. I don't know this guy's intentions, he's potentially bigger than me, he may have a weapon, if I get knocked out, who knows what they'll do to me then, I may not be conscience enough to discern what kind of trouble I'm in before reacting. I'd like to reserve the right to get someone off of me in whatever way necessary to protect myself.

Laws, imo, don't really do anything to protect the aggressor. The problem in this case is the question of who was the aggressor to begin with.

[Denchi]

Laws, imo, don't really do anything to protect the aggressor. The problem in this case is the question of who was the aggressor to begin with.

I think you're probably right. I suppose the statements that lead me down that path of thinking are just the general outrage that people are having over this case. It's a shitty situation, sure, but to assume that Zimmerman had no right to shoot Trayvon under any circumstances doesn't seem to be correct. Perhaps people fail to realize that? There is a scenario that could have happened where Zimmerman would be justified to respond in the way he did. The fact that we don't know exactly happened doesn't fill me with outrage, just sadness, and I feel the whole situation is complicated and unfortunate.

[AidenCarby]

Imo as soon as he left his car and approached old boy, Zimmerman became the aggressor.

[Meresgi]

Somewhat surprised it wasn't manslaughter, but there just wasn't enough to convict him on murder and I guess not even manslaughter. Outcome was what I expected though and even though there is a lot of butthurt, that's how the justice system works. You're innocent till proven guilty no matter how much others want to make you out as a guilty racist murderer before your day in court even begins.

[Serra]

Imo as soon as he left his car and approached old boy, Zimmerman became the aggressor.

I wasn't in the court room, and definitely didn't follow all the arguments presented as much as some, but I feel this is how the prosecution should have presented the case. Instead, it seems like they tried to prove things they couldn't prove (who was on the ground, who initiated the conflict, etc). But maybe someone who knows our legal system better can explain why they couldn't do this?

[Denchi]

How valid an argument is that really? I don't feel like you could really make case that making someone "feel uncomfortable" or "feel in danger" is enough to initiate a physically endangering situation. I think that has to start with physical contact/being presented with real threat of physical harm.

[Aksannyi]

It really depends exactly how he approached the kid, too.

I work in security and I'm sure it's the same with LEO, but a lot of these people we approach on a daily basis automatically are defensive at you just for the sheer act of approaching them. I've come across people (while doing ride alongs, I worked the dispatch side before taking on a different role with the agency) who would immediately become very upset that we just had the audacity to approach them. Simple things like, "Hey, how's it going tonight?" Or, as we have trespass jurisdiction, "Hey man, how you doing? You live over here?" You would be amazed at how angry people get at such simple things. Now granted, Zimmerman was not an actual security officer (I do not know if he carries a Class D or Class G license). He really should not have approached him. This is not really a question.

However, I've seen firsthand how aggressive people in these situations get at such a simple question. Granted, this is all circumstantial, what I am saying. But to me, it's not outside the realm of possibility that the kid was approached, got angry/aggressive/riled up/etc., and a scuffle ensued, because this happens on the regular where I work, a private security firm in central Florida.

Unfortunately for Zimmerman, he made the poor choice to approach Trayvon. Unfortunately for Zimmerman, not being a LEO or security, he didn't have the safety net of a radio for back up, only his phone call to non emergency law enforcement, which would have treated a typical prowling call at a pretty low priority, depending on what was going on over there. In the end, I believe both Zimmerman and Trayvon were in the wrong in many of their interactions, even though we will not ever hear the kid's side of the story. I don't believe Zimmerman was the only one at fault. I do think he exercised extremely poor judgment.

But at the end of the day, if I'm carrying a weapon and I'm getting my ass beaten, I'm going to shoot the guy, too.