[NGTM-1R]

Because one person chose to pursue the other, this was not a random event, and it could be considered that the aggressive pursuit of the victim would have made him believe that he himself was in danger. That's the tragedy of this whole thing, the fact that both sides most likely genuinely believed they were acting in defense of their own lives.

Changing the law won't change that. There was already an appropriate felony charge for what happened, as MP-Ryan noted, but it wasn't pursued. (And manslaughter might apply as well.) Bending the definition of second degree murder that far would make things worse.

[StarSlayer]

Come to Massachusetts, we would rather you be murdered than take steps to defend yourself.

edit-grammar fix for great justice.

[Al-Rik]

When this case was first reported on (or rather, once it got traction on newsfeeds I am reading), I was pretty much on the "Zimmerman needs to be convicted" side of the debate. It seemed to confirm all of the negative narratives that we europeans focus on when we discuss american domestic politics; We had a black kid being killed because of committing the crime of looking a bit shifty to someone who was on a neighbourhood watch power trip. It hit the right buttons, ya know, and confirmation bias did the rest.

The funny thing is that even in some European Nations Zimmerman wouldn't been convicted. Afiak is I know the Florida laws about self defence are roughly the same as in Germany, and we had a same event some years ago:
An old millionaire was mugged in his home and was able to get a gun... he shoot one of the fleeing muggers in the back. the millionaire wasn't convicted because it was self defence.
The public reactions have been the same, but on a lower level.
Some claimed that it was murder, and some claimed it was triggered by racism because the mugger was a children of an emigrant.
But it didn't stir up that much of public comments as the case with Zimmerman.
Well, it's a nice opportunity to refuel some old prejudices against the USA, a opportunity no one in the German Media would not want to waste.

[Flipside]

Because one person chose to pursue the other, this was not a random event, and it could be considered that the aggressive pursuit of the victim would have made him believe that he himself was in danger. That's the tragedy of this whole thing, the fact that both sides most likely genuinely believed they were acting in defense of their own lives.

As I said earlier, Martin most likely seriously over-reacted to the pursuit, but the law still needs to recognize that by pursuing someone in that manner, particularly after being told not to, Zimmerman was encouraging the situation that developed.

What exactly do you suggest, that if you follow someone you are liable to be convicted of manslaughter if he assaults you? I certainly cannot agree with that, nor with any double standards that would put people at legal disadvantage for merely following someone, a legal act in itself. Sure, if he did not follow him, then this all could have been avoided, but law cannot recognize such hypothetical speculations.

As I said earlier, Martin over-reacted to the pursuit, but the problem was that murder 2 was applied when it shouldn't have been. In situations like that, there has to be more available to the court than simply 'Not Guilty'. Even the jurors themselves stated in interviews that the problem was the law that was applied, and were initially split on whether to find him guilty or not.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/zimmerman-juror-says-sanford-detective-made-big-impression-planning-to-write-a-book/2013/07/15/ce4afbb2-edb1-11e2-bb32-725c8351a69e_story.html

IF events unfolded exactly as described, which may or may not be the case then, yes, Zimmerman was defending himself. However, if people feel that the law itself somehow responsible for Zimmerman walking free after what he chose to do, then their next step is not to riot, it is to campaign for the laws change.

Personally, I doubt we will ever find out exactly what happened, chances are it was six of one half dozen of the other, and that, as I've maintained from the start, is the real tragedy of the entire case.

[mjn.mixael]

I could care a less about the trial, the charges, or gun control. But it's been pretty clearly shown how the Martin side swayed the media early and on purpose. Half the country is making decisions based on only partial information and biased images.

Most of journalism pokes fun (and often rightly so) at Fox... but this is a case that shows they are almost all a bunch of tools.

That's why I voted 'Other'.

[MP-Ryan]

a guy who was found innocent by the courts but is still guilty in the eyes of the public

Correction:  he was found not guilty.  The court does not find a person innocent, a person is considered legally innocent of a crime unless proven guilty.  That said, legally innocent and truthfully innocent are two different things.  The legal system does not assess true innocence.

[Nakura]

I overheard two of my co-workers talking about it on my lunch break.

Truly, this represents the American people!

So where is your data coming from? Your own coworkers?

lolno. You just wanted to get that out there though, didn't you? Pretty feisty, I see, always looking to start trouble. Are you George Zimmerman?

Wth Nakura that wasn't even directed to you. Or did you intend to reply to NG? Learn to use the quote function properly. And I agree with The_E on this. You are always jumping at the opportunity to finger point those daym libralss.

I was standing my ground, I felt as though my life was in danger you were making fun of me. To me it seemed like you were implying that I am such a moron, that I would take anything my degenerate co-workers would say with anything more than a grain of salt; let alone that I would use their gossip as "facts" for the creation of this thread.

Rereading what you said and taking it into a different context, I now see that it is entirely possible that you were not attempting to imply that I am naive and/or unintelligent.

[Lorric]

Nakura, I will back Luis up on this, I was very surprised that you didn't see what he was doing. My reaction to seeing your post back when you put it was kind of like Oh, Nakura... and feeling sorry for you. I didn't know what to say though.

He's definitely talking to NGTM-1R, not you.

[Nakura]

Because one person chose to pursue the other, this was not a random event, and it could be considered that the aggressive pursuit of the victim would have made him believe that he himself was in danger. That's the tragedy of this whole thing, the fact that both sides most likely genuinely believed they were acting in defense of their own lives.

As I said earlier, Martin most likely seriously over-reacted to the pursuit, but the law still needs to recognize that by pursuing someone in that manner, particularly after being told not to, Zimmerman was encouraging the situation that developed.

What exactly do you suggest, that if you follow someone you are liable to be convicted of manslaughter if he assaults you? I certainly cannot agree with that, nor with any double standards that would put people at legal disadvantage for merely following someone, a legal act in itself. Sure, if he did not follow him, then this all could have been avoided, but law cannot recognize such hypothetical speculations.

As I said earlier, Martin over-reacted to the pursuit, but the problem was that murder 2 was applied when it shouldn't have been. In situations like that, there has to be more available to the court than simply 'Not Guilty'. Even the jurors themselves stated in interviews that the problem was the law that was applied, and were initially split on whether to find him guilty or not.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/zimmerman-juror-says-sanford-detective-made-big-impression-planning-to-write-a-book/2013/07/15/ce4afbb2-edb1-11e2-bb32-725c8351a69e_story.html

IF events unfolded exactly as described, which may or may not be the case then, yes, Zimmerman was defending himself. However, if people feel that the law itself somehow responsible for Zimmerman walking free after what he chose to do, then their next step is not to riot, it is to campaign for the laws change.

Personally, I doubt we will ever find out exactly what happened, chances are it was six of one half dozen of the other, and that, as I've maintained from the start, is the real tragedy of the entire case.

If you campaign to change the law, that leads to even more problems. That would result in countless innocent people who actually were defending themselves to be convicted. Not to mention if they change the law so that you can be convicted of manslaughter (or even murder) if you defend yourself from someone who you were following, that could be abused just as much as the way the law is currently written. Rather than actual criminals claiming "I was only defending myself," they would now be claiming "he was following me." It just replaces one "loophole" with another.

[Nakura]

Nakura, I will back Luis up on this, I was very surprised that you didn't see what he was doing. My reaction to seeing your post back when you put it was kind of like Oh, Nakura... and feeling sorry for you. I didn't know what to say though.

He's definitely talking to NGTM-1R, not you.

Yes, I see that now. *facepalm*

Sorry Luis, perhaps I am the idiot that I thought you were calling me after all. 

[Flipside]

That's the thing though, isn't it? The law needs to work for both sides involved. As was argued in the case, Zimmerman claimed he left the car to look at a street sign, in a neighborhood he'd lived in for four years and was the Neighborhood Watch leader for. It's not beyond the realms of possibility I suppose, but strikes me as unlikely. Once again, he may have said this purely because he knew the legal eggshells he was walking on, and there's nothing wrong, in essence, with following a suspicious character.

However, the chances are a campaign would have more impact than a riot, even if it achieves 'nothing' with regards to changing the law itself. I agree that the law needs to support people who defend their own neighborhoods, I come from a country that cannot even make up its mind properly how to react to a home intrusion, but it also needs to stress that 'playing the hero' and trying to confront a suspect face-face should only be done if a crime is actually seen to be taken place and/or people are in immediate danger, not that one is assumed about to.

Maybe Zimmermans' comment that 'nothing ever gets done about it' to the Police before he pursued Martin is a more telling comment in the case than it has been taken as, it's often used here as a reason for vigilante action, the -not always unfounded- assumption that if the matter is left to the Police, it will have no long term impact on the situation.

[MP-Ryan]

The self-defense provisions Zimmerman used exist and apply in every Common Law country on the planet (so most of the Commonwealth, the US, and a couple others).  Not sure if similar provisions exist in Germany, or those countries which use a variation on a Civil Code (France, Spain and their former colonies).

Campaigning to change the law isn't the answer - not for the reasons Nakura listed, which aren't even legally applicable, but I digress - but enforcing the existing legislation properly is.  Zimmerman legitimately appears to have used deadly force to defend himself from what the evidence suggests was a deadly force attack - or at least, the prosecution could not prove this wasn't the case.  Questions about Zimmerman's zeal in involving himself in the matter are best addressed as criminal negligence or manslaughter - in short, self-defense may be available to excuse deadly force and absolve you of a murder conviction, but you can be convicted of creating the circumstances which forced you to resort to deadly force when there were other options available.

Zimmerman was charged with the wrong offense.  That's not a problem with the law (and Florida's stand your ground law was not invoked at trail at all), that's a problem with high-profile status in the media.

But again, just so everyone knows, the self-defense provisions Zimmerman invoked are as old as Common Law itself and are available to every resident of every Common Law country, and those based on English Common Law - like the United States.

[666maslo666]

Zimmerman was charged with the wrong offense.  That's not a problem with the law (and Florida's stand your ground law was not invoked at trail at all), that's a problem with high-profile status in the media.

Doesnt the court have the option to convince him of a lesser charge?

I dont think manslaughter conviction would be likely. Youd still have to prove criminal negligence or something like that, but the evidence is not good enough. And he had injuries corroborating that a fight did occur. I remember reading somewhere that in self-defense vs. manslaughter cases, presence of injuries is often a deciding factor.

[NGTM-1R]

Doesnt the court have the option to convince him of a lesser charge?

I dont think manslaughter conviction would be likely. Youd still have to prove criminal negligence or something like that, but the evidence is not good enough. And he had injuries corroborating that a fight did occur. I remember reading somewhere that in self-defense vs. manslaughter cases, presence of injuries is often a deciding factor.

Manslaughter was given as a lesser included charge. There are usually limits to how far you can stretch on that, though. Typically involving some combination of the state's laws, the judge's willingness to allow it, the state seeking to include it, and the defense's objections.

In this case I wouldn't be surprised that either Florida law does not allow a top count to be reduced out of its nature (second degree murder implies intent, manslaughter can, criminally negligent homicide explicitly doesn't) or the judge looked at the anemic case the prosecution put on and when the time came for jury instructions delivered a rebuke by forcing them to fight on the merits of the inappropriate charge they tried for rather than letting them have their cake (charge with second degree murder) and eat it too (get a conviction for criminally negligent homicide).

[Lorric]

Well, The Onion has determined that Zimmerman was guilty, so I guess that settles that then... 

0:00, 0:23 and 2:13...

[BloodEagle]

Am I the only one that finds The Onion completely boring, now?

[Lorric]

Am I the only one that finds The Onion completely boring, now?

The standard has badly slipped. I only check it out once in a while now.

[IronBeer]

The standard has badly slipped. I only check it out once in a while now.

Yeah, I think the Onion's straight-up not funny more often than not. About the only pieces that elicited even a chuckle recently are those about politicians. Their "coverage" of the election was pretty good, but almost everything else is closer to depressing.

OT: (not reading through everything, just leaving a disposable remark) I honestly don't know what to think about this case anymore, and I'm pretty sure that the only person who really knows what happened that night was just acquitted.

[Drogoth]

MP-Ryan summed up my feelings exactly.


And yeah Florida's self defense laws are well in line with 30 other U.S. states and the majority of the developed world. Considering SYG is essentially simply the lack of the 'duty to retreat', the only country I can think of that doesn't have some SYG equivalent is my own (Canada) where lethal force is only justified if you had no other option.

Based on the zimmerman evidence, I feel like he would have been easily acquitted here as well.

[MP-Ryan]

Based on the zimmerman evidence, I feel like he would have been easily acquitted here as well.

Nah, here he would have been charged with manslaughter or criminal negligence causing death and convicted of one of them (likely the latter, manslaughter is still a stretch).  Not a chance second-degree murder would stick here either, though.  Then again, here he wouldn't have been a wannabe cop armed with a handgun in hip holster wandering around his community, either, since such things are totally illegal in our country.

The Zimmerman/Martin travesty is the result of a collision of inadequate firearms laws, inadequate policing, racism, hero complex bull****, street thug bull**** (seriously, Martin was no angel either; both he and Zimmerman can be classed as dip****s, just slightly different kinds of dip****) and the wrong kind of criminal charge laid.  Plenty of blame to be spread around everywhere.