89 replies to this topic

[Ricardo_C]

Zimmerman's getting charged, though it's uncertain what the crime will be. Murder One is out, though.

http://usnews.msnbc....artin-case?lite

[Johnny Henning]

I'd expect some sort of plea bargain announced eventually with Zimmerman speaking to the press, apologizing for the shooting and 'accepting responsibility' for his actions before serving a reduced sentence for manslaughter. I don't think he will be served by trying to fight this to the limit, nor do I think the DA really wants to take the chance with a jury.

This is a good example why Batman, or any vigilante, would never really work in real life. Even if he had all those gadgets and martial arts skills, it would take forever for the police to determine if there was any evidence to charge the crooks he "captures."

[Arjan Dirkse]

I'm not sure I am happy with this. I think the main problem here is bad legislation, so the thing that needs to be fixed, is bad legislation, rather than putting Zimmerman in prison.

[The Lorcan Nagle]

Why not do both?

[Lucian Von Dooom]

Why not do both?

[Arjan Dirkse]

Why not do both?

Of course, if he's guilty yes, but I think it's going to be difficult to convict him of anything.

[Rory Abel]

He's being charged with 2nd degree murder. The impressions I've been reading is that it's so he can plead down to or so a jury can find him guilty of a lesser charge.

[The Lorcan Nagle]

Of course, if he's guilty yes, but I think it's going to be difficult to convict him of anything.

Wait, he didn't shoot a kid in suspicious circumstances?

[Christian U]

Jonny -

So, though Zimmerman might still remain free if the prosecutor doesn't feel she has enough evidence to overcome a motion to dismiss, it isn't necessarily true to claim that the police believed Zimmerman's story simply because they released him without charge the day after the shooting. And it is especially premature to claim that they released Zimmerman because Martin was black.

Obviously. But you didn't answer my question how the same kind of case has been handled when the victim involved was white. Again, that'd be the necessary comparison, and you haven't reacted to it at all.

Again, the charges of racism, unconscious or otherwise, have been somewhat vague and ambiguous (even calling it "unconscious" is a vague description) because, so far, they don't hold up to scrutiny of the specifics of the case.

"Unconscious" was my choice of word to distinguish from deliberate racist actions, and I don't find that vague at all. We have ideas about people based on the colour of their skin (also, on the shape of their noses, on the way their hair is cut etc., but colour can be a rather more important factor), and those may have influenced the police's decision to not investigate this further. They may also not have done so at all - again, the reasonable question to ask here is if this was handled in any way differently than similar cases involving white victims. That would, in this case, be the "specifics of the case" of not charging Zimmermann.

[Johnny Henning]

Again, though, they are the sort of arguments one makes when there is no clear evidence of anything in the specific case. You can apply "unconscious" motives to anything anyone does and you don't have to prove it because, by definition, the person you are accusing would be entirely unaware of anything unconscious. As far as the question whether the police would've responded differently if Martin had been white is again another irrelevant hypothetical since in the circumstances of this case there are obvious reasons outside Martin's race why Zimmerman was suspicious of young black men in the neighborhood - the police description of the burglars - and why the police didn't arrest and charge Zimmerman immediately after the shooting - the Stand Your Ground statute.

I feel it is a question you're asking because you already have invested in the idea that racism must have been involved in this specific case, but can't really state outright where it was involved. So you're throwing out these "suggestions" without really taking time to consider the circumstances or the history of events leading up to the shooting and beyond. Also, it is the sort of question you should answer if you're interested. Show me exactly the same circumstances with a white victim? You probably won't find it since every case is the result of very specific interconnected decisions and situations. There are no model cases.

Now, certainly, I'm suspicious that Martin's race played a part, but I think there has been an overreaction and rush to judgment first against Zimmerman himself and then against the police that this was a hate crime or that Martin's civil rights were violated when, now, having read and seen a lot more related to the shooting, I have to admit that there is a far stronger case to be made that factors entirely unrelated to race were much more influential on this specific event.

I'm not saying unfair racial prejudice doesn't exist in the community or the nation. Obviously, it does. If you look at the statistics for criminal convictions and sentences based on race, you see a vast difference. I remember a speaker recently talking about how he made a speech in Germany about the number of black men on death row in states where many blacks were tortured, lynched and burned alive without trial between the Civil War up into the early days of the Civil Rights movement. The Germans had a very hard time with that idea. Imagine if today, Germany had the death penalty and the vast majority of people it executed were Jews?

However, at the same time, I don't think it is helpful to see racism in every case where it may or may not be a factor. Assumptions, and especially those that result from emotion rather than reason, often lead to falsehood. And proceeding on false assumptions rarely leads to any except disaster and more problems.

I'm suspicious that Martin's race played a factor in the police response immediately after the shooting. But, at the same time, I can't find enough reason to believe that it did after looking into the reports on the case. Also, I'm a little more concerned about how the media presented the case to encourage readers and viewers to make these assumptions, and about how various figures in the media and in politics have used the event to ends that seem entirely uncalled for and more than a little opportunistic.

[Jim Ohara]

From a random news story on the subject:

In Sanford, hurt feelings over a string of past incidents involving black victims and white perpetrators have yet to ease, and the shooting rekindled distrust over the way police and courts have handled such cases. Local college students are planning rallies over the Martin case, and this afternoon, ministers from a number of black churches in the area gathered to voice their anger.

“There has been tension between the black community and the police for a long time,” Turner Clayton, president of the local NAACP, told HuffPost Black Voices. “When [Chief Lee] first started, it seemed that things would get better, but with this Martin case, seems we're dealing with the same old Sanford regime.”

Lee’s predecessor, Brian Tooley, was forced from office last year following a scandal involving a lieutenant’s son who was captured on video attacking a homeless black man. Police officers reportedly questioned him but did not arrest him. The officer’s son, Justin Collison, 21, later turned himself in after the video surfaced on YouTube and was charged in the attack.


Collison's family paid an undisclosed sum to the homeless man, Sherman Ware, and Ware asked prosecutors to drop the case. They didn't, and Collison eventually pleaded no contest and received probation, according to the Orlando Sentinel.

But the 2005 killing of a black teenager, Travares McGill, by two white security guards, one the son of a Sanford Police officer, drove city race relations to a modern low, according to some black residents.

Early one summer morning, security guards Patrick Swofford and Bryan Ansley saw McGill dropping off a group of friends in the parking lot of the apartment complex they were hired to guard, according to published reports. They claimed McGill tried to run them down, and both fired, later claiming self-defense. McGill was pronounced dead at the scene. Swofford was a police department volunteer and Ansley is the son of a former veteran of the force.

The pair was arrested and charged, Swofford with manslaughter and Ansley with firing into an occupied vehicle. But a judge later cited lack of evidence and dismissed both cases. According to autopsy reports, McGill suffered fatal gunshot wounds to the back, and it was unclear if the pair was in danger.

“People are outraged because they never recovered from the last shooting, or recovered from the beating a year or so ago with the policeman’s son,” said Turner. “All of these things are escalating and simmering, and it’s going to reach a point where it’s going to explode.”

Let's not pretend there's not a history here.

[Arjan Dirkse]

Wait, he didn't shoot a kid in suspicious circumstances?

Yes, and that's not necessarily a crime.

I am not sure what you mean with "suspicious" but I think it goes without saying that everytime an unarmed teenager is shot that in itself constitutes suspicious circumstances. But if Zimmerman claims he was assaulted by Trayvon Martin and he was in danger of getting killed - which is not impossible - then without witnesses it's going to be really hard, if not impossibe, to come out with a guilty verdict..

The law should be on trial here. When you allow mentally unstable people to walk around with a concealed firearm playing cowboys and Indians, I am not sure if you can turn around and put the cowboy on trial when an accident happens.

[Johnny Henning]

From a random news story on the subject:



Let's not pretend there's not a history here.

Who's pretending anything? Again, that's the sort of sideways accusation that doesn't say anything specific. The shooting and the police response could have been affected by racial bias, but at the same time, nothing indicates that it necessarily has been.

Let's not pretend that the history in the city and state hasn't colored the perception and reaction to this specific case, either. I never said there wasn't a history of racial bias, but that this case itself doesn't merit any immediate judgment or assumptions that Martin's race was a major factor.

The unjustified shooting of a black teen certainly gets people emotional though, and I think it has been used to organize a response to the historical racial bias, though. However, I'm not sure that it has been productive or will be all that positive when it can't be shown this incident itself did not directly result from those tensions.

[The Lorcan Nagle]

Yes, and that's not necessarily a crime.

Maybe note, but it does need to be investigated along with a review of the Stand Your Ground Laws.

I am not sure what you mean with "suspicious" but I think it goes without saying that everytime an unarmed teenager is shot that in itself constitutes suspicious circumstances. But if Zimmerman claims he was assaulted by Trayvon Martin and he was in danger of getting killed - which is not impossible - then without witnesses it's going to be really hard, if not impossibe, to come out with a guilty verdict..

Yes, those suspicious circumstances. The fact that we don't know exactly what happened means that it's suspicious.

The law should be on trial here. When you allow mentally unstable people to walk around with a concealed firearm playing cowboys and Indians, I am not sure if you can turn around and put the cowboy on trial when an accident happens.

I agree 100% that the law should be on trial, but unless Martin can be deemed to have not been in contol of his faculties then he should stand trial for what he's done.

[Jim Ohara]

The law should be on trial here.

The law has been on trial. It's won successfully. I posted a link in the last thread detailing different cases where Stand your Ground was upheld successfully. I know it's nuts, but that's how Floridians want to live. The case here is Zimmerman didn't stand his ground, he followed and agitated an innocent teenager.

Let's not pretend that the history in the city and state hasn't colored the perception and reaction to this specific case, either. I never said there wasn't a history of racial bias, but that this case itself doesn't merit any immediate judgment or assumptions that Martin's race was a major factor.

If you're looking for definitive proof you won't find it. In the same way there won't ever be definitive proof about what happened between Zimmerman and Martin. The world has a nasty habit of not providing proof in pretty much every situation. So life is about making rational logical judgements. I think anyone saying the kids race wasn't a factor in the police reaction isn't making a rational judgement given the history of the area and the history of the police in the US in general.

[Arjan Dirkse]

The case here is Zimmerman didn't stand his ground, he followed and agitated an innocent teenager.

That's true, I don't doubt for a second that Zimmerman didn't make a stupid decision to follow Trayvon Martin around. It's not his lack of judgment that I'm unsure about, what I'm unsure about is if that that makes him guilty of murder.

If Trayvon Martin responds to his being followed by beating Zimmerman to such a degree that he has reason to fear for his life, then i think the stand your ground law still applies.

[Rory Abel]

The law has been on trial. It's won successfully. I posted a link in the last thread detailing different cases where Stand your Ground was upheld successfully. I know it's nuts, but that's how Floridians want to live. The case here is Zimmerman didn't stand his ground, he followed and agitated an innocent teenager.

The NY times has an interesting article about how while the NRA is the one often pushing these "stand your ground" and "castle" the other main backers are primarily companies that sell guns.

N.R.A.’s Influence Seen in Expansion of Self-Defense Laws

No one had yet heard of a Florida teenager named Trayvon Martin when a group of Wisconsin Republicans got together last year to discuss expanding a self-defense bill before the State Legislature.

The bill, known as the Castle Doctrine, made it harder to prosecute or sue people who used deadly force against an intruder inside their house. But the Wisconsin legislators, urged on by the National Rifle Association in a series of meetings, wanted it to go further. They crafted an amendment that extended the bill’s protections to include lawns, sidewalks and swimming pools outside the residence, as well as vehicles and places of business.

-cut-

Critics see the laws as part of a national campaign by the National Rifle Association, which began gathering on Thursday for its annual meeting in St. Louis, to push back against limits on gun ownership and use. That effort, they say, has been assisted by conservative legislators in states like Wisconsin, and by the American Legislative Exchange Council, which has promoted model legislation based on Florida’s law; the council, known as ALEC, is a conservative networking organization made up of legislators, corporations like Walmart, a large retailer of long guns, and interest groups like the rifle association.

However, these types of laws are definitely going to be put on trial again. Bloomberg, who has turned his attention away from NY and onto Gun Control for a while now has turned his focus to it too.

Bloomberg Blasts NRA Over 'Stand Your Ground' Laws

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg called for the nationwide reform or repeal of Stand Your Ground laws today at an event in Washington D.C. to announce the Second Chance on Shoot First campaign.

The campaign is intended to prevent killings like that of17-year-old Trayvon Martin and Bloomberg blamed the National Rifle Association for the Florida law that many feel empowered George Zimmerman to shoot the unarmed Martin.

"In reality the NRA's leaders weren't interested in public safety. They were interested in promoting a culture where people take the law into their own hands and face no consequences for it. Let's call that by its real name, vigilantism," he said. "The NRA should be ashamed of themselves. This has nothing to do with gun owners rights. It has nothing to do with the second amendment."

Bloomberg, who was joined by civil rights leaders and Florida State Sen. Chris Smith, said the laws had undermined the justice system and have done harm to public safety.

"They justify civilian gunplay and invite vigilante justice and retribution with disastrous results," he said.

Edited by Rory Abel, 12 April 2012 - 04:23 PM.

[Johnny Henning]

If you're looking for definitive proof you won't find it. In the same way there won't ever be definitive proof about what happened between Zimmerman and Martin. The world has a nasty habit of not providing proof in pretty much every situation. So life is about making rational logical judgements. I think anyone saying the kids race wasn't a factor in the police reaction isn't making a rational judgement given the history of the area and the history of the police in the US in general.

Again, it depends. You can cite cases where there was racial bias, but at the same time, ask yourself this - were you looking for cases to justify a point you already decided was true? You posted the case from six or seven years ago where two white men were arrested for killing a black teen, but not convicted due to lack of evidence. Even in the report it says it "drove city race relations to a modern low, according to some black residents." Doesn't seem very comprehensive, but the intent of the report is clear - - deliver dramatic implications to keep the reader's attention. How informative is it? Not much, but it does feed the debate that sells news.

It takes a lot more than a cursory search for racially charged cases to make a strong case for endemic racism in a community's police force. I'm not saying that a case can't be made, but it is easy to misrepresent the reality if that's what you want to do or want to believe. I'm with Eric Holder when he said "We have a very high bar that we have to meet in order to bring federal charges in this case so we are continuing in that regard."

I'm glad to see this is going to court. I really want to know what happened and how the police justify their actions after the shooting. But at this point - from everything I've read and looked into - I'm not going to assume they were racist or made any decisions based on biases outside the circumstances they faced.

[Jim Ohara]

If Trayvon Martin responds to his being followed by beating Zimmerman to such a degree that he has reason to fear for his life, then i think the stand your ground law still applies.

If Zimmerman was following a woman, and she turned around and attacked him with mace or a tazer, would he be right to shoot her?

The whole case hinges on the story that Zimmerman went back to his car and Martin followed him to start a fight. Zimmerman claims he didn't do anything in antagonize Martin. But we know from the cell phone call that he did, Martin was nervous and knew he was being followed. That's the crux of the case - Zimmerman was the antagonist, not Martin, in the same way if he stalked a woman and she tazered him she'd have been in the right.

[Arjan Dirkse]

If Zimmerman was following a woman, and she turned around and attacked him with mace or a tazer, would he be right to shoot her?

The whole case hinges on the story that Zimmerman went back to his car and Martin followed him to start a fight. Zimmerman claims he didn't do anything in antagonize Martin. But we know from the cell phone call that he did, Martin was nervous and knew he was being followed. That's the crux of the case - Zimmerman was the antagonist, not Martin, in the same way if he stalked a woman and she tazered him she'd have been in the right.

The tazer comparison isn't entirely right, since I think it isn't deadly force. If Zimmerman can convince the jury that he had reason to fear for his life, then he should be acquitted.

Again, I don't think the fact that he was following Trayvon Martin is all that relevant. Unless he's on trial for stalking people or something