Zimmerman not guilty

[elwoodblues]

It seems as though most people's opinions of this case are divided along party lines. Is everything political now?

[BackInTex]

Do you ever admit being wrong? You certainly get plenty of opportunities.

Do you? You were completely wrong about my 'glee' and 'disappointment' . You don't know me, yet you continue your personal assault. You don't like my politics. I get that. I'm sure I wouldn't like yours. Though you never seem to post an opinion other than to be contrary or insulting to others (or just me, possibly).

I can only assume you are a real asshole in person, a pompous one at that.

[Beebs52]

Do you ever admit being wrong? You certainly get plenty of opportunities.

Do you? You were completely wrong about my 'glee' and 'disappointment' . You don't know me, yet you continue your personal assault. You don't like my politics. I get that. I'm sure I wouldn't like yours. Though you never seem to post an opinion other than to be contrary or insulting to others (or just me, possibly).

I can only assume you are a real asshole in person, a pompous one at that.

This all makes me sad. Unfortunately most of America is ignorant about the jury process. Emotions, nullification, and outside of facts biases play no decent part in the trial process. Deliberating specific facts, procedures and charges are the jury's duty. Whether media or random people think Zimmerman is an asshole has nothing to do with anything. I feel sorry for the jurors. I served on a capital murder jury and it was horrible. If you're determined to inject race in this then you're part of an ongoing problem that will never disappear because of faux white liberal guilt.

[Ritterskoop]

From the moment he ignored the 911 operator's instruction not to follow, I would have found Zimmerman guilty of something. That's the moment where everything turned, for me.

But.

I did not hear five weeks of testimony that the jury heard, nor 10-12 hours of conversations they had in deliberations. So I trust them and I believe in the system. Except the system still seems to work more favorably for some defendants/victims than others. But until that gets fixed, I stand by the jury's work even though it's not the verdict I preferred.

[Beebs52]

From the moment he ignored the 911 operator's instruction not to follow, I would have found Zimmerman guilty of something. That's the moment where everything turned, for me.

But.

I did not hear five weeks of testimony that the jury heard, nor 10-12 hours of conversations they had in deliberations. So I trust them and I believe in the system. Except the system still seems to work more favorably for some defendants/victims than others. But until that gets fixed, I stand by the jury's work even though it's not the verdict I preferred.

See that's the thing. It was bad judgment but not illegal. The jump to racism is crazy

[Estonut]

My faith has been restored.

However, justice still waits.

Zimmerman should be compensated by the medias, Sharpton, and the DOJ.

All the deaths from the rioting falls squarely on NBC and Obama.

Faith in what?

The media, Sharpton, DoJ and Obama all stepped over the line, but there would have been no line if GZ hadn't instigated this whole thing. His duty as neighborhood watch volunteer was to be an unarmed observer. They are only to observe and report. He was told by the police not to follow. He chased and stalked TM. When he is the initiator/aggressor, he has no right to claim self-defense, just because a kid turned the tables on him. What about TM's right to self-defense against an unknown adult male predator in the dark?

My respect for you just went up a notch. You're now at 1.

It's compliments like this that make you the same insufferable prick you've always been.

[littlebeast13]

It seems as though most people's opinions of this case are divided along party lines. Is everything political now?

I don't watch the news, and haven't paid the least bit of attention to this media circus... but I have read this thread with interest and noticed the same thing you did. The answer as to why that is isn't that hard to figure out though.... instead of this being a case about a man shooting a kid (either out of self defense or for no reason at all, I'm not judging), it was just another opportunity for people to bitch about racism because the two participants happened to be white and black. And there isn't a more politically charged issue than racism.....

Sadly, I've seen little I can agree with from either side on this argument in this thread. I'll continue to stay in my cave....

lb13

[silverscreenselect]

Not by anything demonstrated, but Zimmerman must have been racially motivated to get his ass kicked and then shoot the one doing the head bounce on the sidewalk. Of course, he should've waited until he say just how far this 5'11" martial arts training, serial fight participating, gun buying wannabe, dope smoker was going to go.

If you accost someone with a gun and they strike back and the fight doesn't go the way you hoped, you don't legally get to call a timeout that justifies your shooting the same person you had no right to accost in the first place.

I don't think that George Zimmerman had it in for all blacks. I do think that he had formed a profile of what likely burglars in his neighborhood would be after his conversations with his neighbor who was robbed and that based on that profile, which included the fact that this was a young black man, he stalked him and provoked what wound up being a violent confrontation.

[silverscreenselect]

All he had to do is what I assume you or I would have done...turned around and asked calmly "Can I help you?" It probably wouldn't have taken much to diffuse the situation. But Martin likely was never taught to be polite, or that he should respect others by his mother. And it cost him his life. I've seen it plenty. I've experience it plenty.

I'm a bit confused here. Trayvon Martin is stalked by an armed man who was just overheard by the police shouting about how "f**ing punks" always get away with it and he's supposed to be calm, polite, and respectful. I, on the other hand, am approached by two armed men who accost me and demand my wallet and I'm supposed to duke it out or shoot it out with them or else I'm a coward.

Trayvon Martin was a teenager who, in retrospect, didn't act very smart. Teenagers do a lot of stupid things when they're under far less emotional pressure than Martin was at that moment. It cost him his life. It didn't justify his shooting. If I'd tried to defend myself against the guys who robbed me, that wouldn't have been very smart either, but if they killed me, it wouldn't have justified the shooting.

The cops didn't want George Zimmerman because they knew he was an emotionally unstable hothead, and when you give someone like that a gun, bad things happen.

[TheCalvinator24]

Do you ever admit being wrong? You certainly get plenty of opportunities.

Do you? You were completely wrong about my 'glee' and 'disappointment' . You don't know me, yet you continue your personal assault. You don't like my politics. I get that. I'm sure I wouldn't like yours. Though you never seem to post an opinion other than to be contrary or insulting to others (or just me, possibly).

I can only assume you are a real asshole in person, a pompous one at that.

Whoa there, BiT!

I've met both of y'all in real life, and you are both very personable. Ed is not pompous in the least. I don't agree with his political leanings, either, but that's no reason to call names.

Ed is not blameless in this exchange, but can we tone down the rhetoric just a little?

[silverscreenselect]

You'd like to think others are all like you, but I'm not. Most other men, at least the ones I know are not that way either. And I have been in a couple such situations. Never armed though. Pants came out fine both times. I never been robbed, by the way, just assaulted and threatened.

So you were assaulted at gunpoint a couple of times and fought them off, presumably with your fists and tough demeanor. Congratulations, you're a better man than I am. If you'd been in my shoes, you'd have saved yourself $60 and a couple of credit cards.

Or maybe I misunderstood that and you were just involved in a fight with people who weren't carrying guns. That happened to me in my younger days as well. I just never classified those as life or death situations.

I'm pretty sure I'm not like you and most of your buddies who equate carrying a gun with being a real man. If you are ever assaulted by real criminals with real guns, then one of two things is going to happen. Either you'll wind up doing what they want, the same as I did, or you'll try to defend yourself and one or more stupid people are going to get shot... you or the criminals. You'd be justified but you'd both be stupid. And that's your choice, as long as it's just you and them. But if you happen to be at home or in the company of your wife and family, your loved ones didn't sign on for your stupidity and they are just as likely to be killed or badly injured as a result of it.

And yes, I'm aware that these might be the criminals who intended to kill or maim you all along and pulling a gun might be the only way to prevent that. But it's far more likely that you're dealing with a dangerous but survivable situation that you just turned into a deadly situation by trying to use a gun.

There's a reason that police tell robbery victims to do what the criminals want. There's a reason why Waffle House, which is practically an open invitation at night for thieves to rob them, won't allow their employees to carry guns at work. They are concerned about the lives and health of innocent people a lot more than saving a few dollars in a robbery.

I don't have to justify myself to you, but I've been involved in two life threatening situations, once when I was robbed and once when a wild boar charged at me (technically charged at my dog who was running to hide behind me) when I was hiking in the woods. I survived both times.

[mellytu74]

From the moment he ignored the 911 operator's instruction not to follow, I would have found Zimmerman guilty of something. That's the moment where everything turned, for me.

But.

I did not hear five weeks of testimony that the jury heard, nor 10-12 hours of conversations they had in deliberations. So I trust them and I believe in the system. Except the system still seems to work more favorably for some defendants/victims than others. But until that gets fixed, I stand by the jury's work even though it's not the verdict I preferred.

See that's the thing. It was bad judgment but not illegal. The jump to racism is crazy

The kid is dead. George Zimmerman shot him. Trayvon Martin shouldn't be dead.

BUT -- I believe that, had the prosecutors gone for something other than murder 2, it becomes a much easier case to try. Say, involuntary manslaughter.

But they didn't.

I agree with Skoop. And Beebs.

[TheConfessor]

Do you ever admit being wrong? You certainly get plenty of opportunities.

Do you? You were completely wrong about my 'glee' and 'disappointment' . You don't know me, yet you continue your personal assault. You don't like my politics. I get that. I'm sure I wouldn't like yours. Though you never seem to post an opinion other than to be contrary or insulting to others (or just me, possibly).

I can only assume you are a real asshole in person, a pompous one at that.

If you weren't actually looking forward to blaming NBC and Obama for deaths and rioting, I must have misread your intent. I was wrong and I apologize.

[silverscreenselect]

BUT -- I believe that, had the prosecutors gone for something other than murder 2, it becomes a much easier case to try. Say, involuntary manslaughter.

The judge did charge the jury on manslaughter as a lesser included offense. What happened here is what often happens in criminal cases. The defense throws up all sorts of side issues so the jury loses track of the key moments. Trayvon Martin initially ran away from George Zimmerman. That's not a gangsta wannabe standing up to the man. That's a scared kid. Zimmerman caught him and that's when the confrontation ensued. Ironically, under Florida law, if Trayvon had been carrying a gun when Zimmerman chased him down and confronted him, he probably could have shot the armed Zimmerman and pled self defense.

Fortunately, there are civil cases (I agree another federal civil rights case will not be a good idea), and in a civil case Zimmerman is going to have to take the stand to explain his side of the story under hostile examination. Then we'll see how justice plays out.

[TheConfessor]

Fortunately, there are civil cases (I agree another federal civil rights case will not be a good idea), and in a civil case Zimmerman is going to have to take the stand to explain his side of the story under hostile examination. Then we'll see how justice plays out.

If Zimmerman had been convicted and sent to prison for several years, would there still be is civil suit? And would they let him out of prison to participate and testify in the civil suit? What about a capital murder case where someone is sentenced to be executed? Would the state have to keep him alive in order to participate in a civil suit? I'm just curious how these things usually work, and I respect your knowledge on the subject.

[Bob78164]

Fortunately, there are civil cases (I agree another federal civil rights case will not be a good idea), and in a civil case Zimmerman is going to have to take the stand to explain his side of the story under hostile examination. Then we'll see how justice plays out.

If Zimmerman had been convicted and sent to prison for several years, would there still be is civil suit? And would they let him out of prison to participate and testify in the civil suit? What about a capital murder case where someone is sentenced to be executed? Would the state have to keep him alive in order to participate in a civil suit? I'm just curious how these things usually work, and I respect your knowledge on the subject.

There would still have been a civil suit, but it would have been quick and easy (for the plaintiff) because the criminal conviction would very probably have conclusively foreclosed Zimmerman from contesting liability. --Bob

[TheCalvinator24]

Fortunately, there are civil cases (I agree another federal civil rights case will not be a good idea), and in a civil case Zimmerman is going to have to take the stand to explain his side of the story under hostile examination. Then we'll see how justice plays out.

If Zimmerman had been convicted and sent to prison for several years, would there still be is civil suit? And would they let him out of prison to participate and testify in the civil suit? What about a capital murder case where someone is sentenced to be executed? Would the state have to keep him alive in order to participate in a civil suit? I'm just curious how these things usually work, and I respect your knowledge on the subject.

There would still have been a civil suit, but it would have been quick and easy (for the plaintiff) because the criminal conviction would very probably have conclusively foreclosed Zimmerman from contesting liability. --Bob

From what I've read about Florida law, Zimmerman's acquittal on the grounds of self-defense provides immunity from civil suit under state law. If that's correct, then if a lawsuit is filed, it will go away quickly with a Summary Judgment.

[Bob78164]

If Zimmerman had been convicted and sent to prison for several years, would there still be is civil suit? And would they let him out of prison to participate and testify in the civil suit? What about a capital murder case where someone is sentenced to be executed? Would the state have to keep him alive in order to participate in a civil suit? I'm just curious how these things usually work, and I respect your knowledge on the subject.

There would still have been a civil suit, but it would have been quick and easy (for the plaintiff) because the criminal conviction would very probably have conclusively foreclosed Zimmerman from contesting liability. --Bob

From what I've read about Florida law, Zimmerman's acquittal on the grounds of self-defense provides immunity from civil suit under state law. If that's correct, then if a lawsuit is filed, it will go away quickly with a Summary Judgment.

I suppose that's possible but it's difficult to believe simply because the civil plaintiffs aren't parties to the criminal case. Such a rule might even run into due process difficulties. --Bob

[TheCalvinator24]

There would still have been a civil suit, but it would have been quick and easy (for the plaintiff) because the criminal conviction would very probably have conclusively foreclosed Zimmerman from contesting liability. --Bob

From what I've read about Florida law, Zimmerman's acquittal on the grounds of self-defense provides immunity from civil suit under state law. If that's correct, then if a lawsuit is filed, it will go away quickly with a Summary Judgment.

I suppose that's possible but it's difficult to believe simply because the civil plaintiffs aren't parties to the criminal case. Such a rule might even run into due process difficulties. --Bob

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/ind ... 6.032.html

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

(Emphasis added)

If Zimmerman is sued, he will raise this issue. If the Court finds that he is entitled to the immunity, the case will be dismissed, and the Plaintiff will be required to pay "reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of [the] civil action."

My prediction is that there will be no civil suit filed.

[Appa23]

From what I've read about Florida law, Zimmerman's acquittal on the grounds of self-defense provides immunity from civil suit under state law. If that's correct, then if a lawsuit is filed, it will go away quickly with a Summary Judgment.

I suppose that's possible but it's difficult to believe simply because the civil plaintiffs aren't parties to the criminal case. Such a rule might even run into due process difficulties. --Bob

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/ind ... 6.032.html

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

(Emphasis added)

If Zimmerman is sued, he will raise this issue. If the Court finds that he is entitled to the immunity, the case will be dismissed, and the Plaintiff will be required to pay "reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of [the] civil action."

My prediction is that there will be no civil suit filed.

My prediction is that there will be a civil suit filed, if for no other reason than it forces Zimmerman to testify, tell his version of what happened, and be subjected to intense cross-examination by much better attorneys than the prosecutors. (I imagine that there are many attorneys who will be offering their services to the Martin family.)

To seek immunity, Zimmerman still needs to ask for a hearing under Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law, as he did not ask for one before the criminal trial. So, Zimmerman will need to take the stand, at least once, at some point before this entire event is completed, and it will be up to a judge to decide if he is entitled to immunity or not.

Based on what BiT and SSS have said, I guess that I should be happy that I live where I do. Lived maybe half of my life, and I never have been accosted in any way where my life would be in danger. The closest that I ever got was stepping between drunk meatheads during a frat party and trying to get them to calm down.

[Bob Juch]

From what I've read about Florida law, Zimmerman's acquittal on the grounds of self-defense provides immunity from civil suit under state law. If that's correct, then if a lawsuit is filed, it will go away quickly with a Summary Judgment.

I suppose that's possible but it's difficult to believe simply because the civil plaintiffs aren't parties to the criminal case. Such a rule might even run into due process difficulties. --Bob

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/ind ... 6.032.html

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

(Emphasis added)

If Zimmerman is sued, he will raise this issue. If the Court finds that he is entitled to the immunity, the case will be dismissed, and the Plaintiff will be required to pay "reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of [the] civil action."

My prediction is that there will be no civil suit filed.

Zimmerman would have to have a separate hearing. If judge found he justifiably used force in self-defense in the face of an "unlawful threat" then he'd be immune from the suit.

[silverscreenselect]

If Zimmerman is sued, he will raise this issue. If the Court finds that he is entitled to the immunity, the case will be dismissed, and the Plaintiff will be required to pay "reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of [the] civil action."

My prediction is that there will be no civil suit filed.

It's not quite that simple. Florida has a procedure, which is often followed, that allows the defendant to file a Motion for Declaration of Immunity and Dismissal prior to the criminal trial. That's a proceeding in front of the judge in which the defendant has the burden of establishing that he acted in self-defense (and is subject to an appeal by the State if successful, much as the state can appeal the granting of a motion to suppress). If he is successful there, then immunity attaches.

Zimmerman, of course, did not do that, and he was acquitted on a general verdict of Not Guilty. So, under Florida law, he isn't entitled to that immunity in a subsequent civil case. If sued, Zimmerman could (and undoubtedly would) file this motion again in civil court and it would be litigated before a trial on the merits. But he would face the twin problems of having to take the stand in his defense and having the burden of proof before a judge, not a jury.

http://www.husseinandwebber.com/stand_your_ground.html

[SportsFan68]

. . . and once when a wild boar charged at me (technically charged at my dog who was running to hide behind me) when I was hiking in the woods. I survived both times.

That's the second time you've mentioned the wild boar, and I, for one, am ready to hear the whole story.

OK, Attentive Cat and I are ready.

[tlynn78]

Do you ever admit being wrong? You certainly get plenty of opportunities.

Do you? You were completely wrong about my 'glee' and 'disappointment' . You don't know me, yet you continue your personal assault. You don't like my politics. I get that. I'm sure I wouldn't like yours. Though you never seem to post an opinion other than to be contrary or insulting to others (or just me, possibly).

I can only assume you are a real asshole in person, a pompous one at that.

This all makes me sad. Unfortunately most of America is ignorant about the jury process. Emotions, nullification, and outside of facts biases play no decent part in the trial process. Deliberating specific facts, procedures and charges are the jury's duty. Whether media or random people think Zimmerman is an asshole has nothing to do with anything. I feel sorry for the jurors. I served on a capital murder jury and it was horrible. If you're determined to inject race in this then you're part of an ongoing problem that will never disappear because of faux white liberal guilt.

This. Times ten. And to say "I watched part of the trial, and if I was on the jury, I would have found him guilty," is just ignorant. Not to mention, pointless unless you assume there was a lone holdout for "not guilty" and that you would replace that juror.

t.

[Bob Juch]

This guy isn't shy about his opinion: