Zimmerman/Martin Jury
- Thread starter Stoked
- Start date
The problem is that we will never really know how it started and happened. Because of that I say Zimmerman walks.
I see two plausible scenarios:
1. Zimmerman gets out and starts following Martin. They get in a verbal arguement. This excalates into pushing and Zimmerman takes a swing at Martin and either misses or barely clips him. Martin defends himself and proceeds to beat Zimmerman up. Zimmerman upon realising he is losing the fight shoots Martin and kills him.
2. Zimmerman gets out and starts following Martin. Verbal arguement. Martin attacks Zimmerman and starts beating him up. Zimmerman in fear for his life shoots Martin. Martin dies.
One is self defense one is murder. The problem is that both are plausible and it has to be beyond a reasonable doubt. It is not. Zimmerman walks.
candrew
Well-Known Member
While everything that happend once Martin and Zimmerman engaged one another is up for debate, the bottom line is the moment before that occurred Martin was doing nothing wrong and it was fully appropriate for him to be where he was. For the person who took his life, I think these facts would weigh heavy even on the hardest souls.
No doubt that Zimmerman made stupid decisions that lead up to this tragedy. Such as not listening to the 911 operator. True they cannot order him to do anything but Iw ould listen to the expert that I called on my problem. At most I'd follow him from a safe distance in my car. Just keep him in sight.
That's not convincing, but him following a suspicious looking kid for apparently no real reason has always bothered me. I wouldn't mind the least bit if they ring him up on stalking charges or something. The guy deserves some punishment, IMO, and has already gotten plenty with the jail and trial and all.
That's just it. Following kids around and creeping them out is wrong. Martin would have gotten his *** kicked by any parent of a 17 year old being stalked like that, and probably have been shot over it too.
Situational. He was on the phone with police dispatch and following a guy around at night, in the rain in an area that has had a recent crime spree. Not some 12 year old on a sunny day riding down the street.
candrew
Well-Known Member
What's not convincing?
That cuts both ways. Zimmerman was, in his own mind, protecting his neighborhood. Zimmerman wasn't "doing anything wrong" either.
The crux in my mind is and has always been who struck first. I've been pretty soundly convinced that Martin struck first based on what I've followed of the trial. However, even if I say I don't know who struck first that means an acquittal. If Zimmerman had died that night and I couldn't say for certain that Martin struck first (and I can't) it would mean that Martin would have to be found not-guilty.
Now, I feel like there is a certain perspective that it doesn't really matter if Martin struck first, that because Zimmerman is a gung-ho wanna-be cop who racially targeted martin and "stalked" him he had forfeited his right to self defense as soon as the operator told him that they didn't need him to follow Zimmerman. I very strongly reject that take, but it's out there and people are sticking to it. I don't know what to say to them other than I suspect they're going to be very disappointed in the verdict because the law does not reflect that view.
I just want to say I had a mostly negative view of Zimmerman before the trial and I figured he was completely unreasonable in pretty much everything he did, although technically not convictable of 2nd degree murder. After following the trial and watching a few extra videos I have a more or less neutral view of Zimmerman. I'm not a fan of nosey do-gooders harassing people, but I've never felt that it made a person evil the way people seem to think Zimmerman is evil. His desire to "fight crime" has been very harshly ridiculed. Is it the ultimate result of his attitude or the attitude itself that is bad? Real cops are often (mostly in my experience) just as big of jackasses as it sounds like Zimmerman the wanna-be cop was. Are police officers evil. They often initiate confrontations with people based on assumptions and the police shoot and kill people on occasion. Part of what I don't like is the attitude that a "regular" person shouldn't take an active role in preventing crime and that having an interest in doing so is in and of itself proof that the person has ill-will and malice. I don't make that connection.
I'm going on and on I know, but finally I think this case serves as a very valuable example of a few things. One, it tells me we need to rethink out concealed carry, stand your ground, castle doctrine and neighborhood watch situation. We need some rules of engagement if you will. I had them printed on a little slip of paper in my pocket anytime I was armed on foreign soil or pier-side in a foreign port.
The next is an example to the pro-gun crowd (of which I am a member). I've read a bit on gun related websites. I always found it highly distasteful to hear people excitedly talking about what they'd do if they were in a situation in which, in their eyes, lethal force was justified. One common notion was that if you do deploy your firearm in "self-defense" you should absolutely shoot the person until they're dead because otherwise they could testify against you and possibly take you to civil court for damages. That's plain disgusting. Another popular phrase was "two in the chest, one in the head" which is basically saying the same thing as shoot them 'till they're dead. Well, take a look at Zimmerman. He's living the lethal force/self-defense dream and it doesn't look very appealing to me. Deploying and using our privately owned firearms is not something any of us should be looking for opportunities to do. If there are other options we should do everything we can to make those other options work. If someone is about to make it out your window with your blu-ray player...let them go. The real life consequences of taking a life are not fun and will not be easy and will follow you for the rest of your life.
If you read all that all I can say is thanks for allowing me to waste a little bit of your time with my random mostly uneducated views. Have a nice day.
Wasn't this tried incorrectly? Which maybe the prosecutions downfall. There is no evidence to support the theory than Zimmerman didn't get attacked.
All the evidence against him was that his stupid actions, knowledge that he was a child, overzealous, and possibly prejudice(not even against blacks but against any kids up to no good, whoever "they" was in they always get away). He lied about why he left the car. It wasn't to obtain an address, it was after he told the non emergency number martin was running. Flat out he didn't have to get out of his car, and shouldn't of.
They should have went after manslaughter to begin with. That is what he is guilty of. His stupid actions were partly to blame for Martin dying.
Amoung other things. For example people saying it is Martins voice on the recording (his mom and friend). Well Zimmermans mom and best friend say it is Zimmerman's voice. So that is a wash.
Martin's best friend (prosecution witness), from what I have read, was a horrible witness. The defense shredded her.
Forensic expert saying that the shot was while zimmerman was on his back casts doubt on Martin being the one bottom and hence the attacker.
I think even manslaughter is questionable to be honest. Up until the point of conflict, fight and death of Martin no one did anything that had broken the law. Zimmerman getting out and confronting Martin is not against the law, Zimmerm/Martin hating the other due to skin tone is not against the law(as implied) and running from some guy following you is not against the law.
Also you can not double try for the same crime correct? So if Zimmerman walks, and I will be stunned if he doesn't, they cannot charge him with manslaughter correct?
candrew
Well-Known Member
People keep bringing up the rain, but I have no idea why that's relevant. It's not like humans melt in the rain and aren't capable of walking in it.