purplerat wrote:To be completely honest my take on the racial element of this case had nothing to do with Zimmerman. Rather that I don't believe police would have waited so long to arrest Zimmerman had Martin been a clean cut white kid wearing khakis and a polo shirt.

Based on what?

Regardless of whether it was a formal arrest, police took Zimmerman into custody at the scene, and interviewed him at length. He then, voluntarily, took part in a reconstruction.

Zimmerman wasn't arrested and charged because prosecutors and cops didn't think there was a case that'd hold-up in court. He was only indicted when an outside prosecutor was brought in. Judging by the prosecutorial horrorshow at his trial, with star billing given to a barely-coherent witness who causally used racial slurs and incriminated the alleged victim of the same, and forensics that corroborated the defense account to the letter, the original assessment was correct. This should never have gone to trial.

Prosecuting Zimmerman was a waste of the state's time and money, not to mention the stress and cost put on the acquitted person. It was only done after the case was seized on by the media, and became a focus for various agendas.

Furthermore had Zimmerman been a black man and killed the aforementioned hypothetical white kid I don't think there would have even been a trial. The DA would have come at him hard with the threat of 1st degree murder and execution then gotten a manslaughter plea.

Again, based on what? Does the relevant DA have a history of this behavior?

Guilty until you prove yourself innocent? Oh yeah, sign me up.


Not.

Moridin wrote:

purplerat wrote:He ran away from Zimmerman. Whatever his reason or what he was feeling Zimmerman should have realized that Martin was running away from him to avoid him and thus how chasing him would likely be perceived.

Zimmerman did not do anything illegal when pursuing Martin. In other words, that is completely irrelevant from a legal standpoint.

However, when Martin was bashing Zimmerman's head into the sidewalk (supported by wounds on Zimmerman and the fact that Martin only had wounds on his knuckles), that is illegal (felony battering).

What matters for the legal question is: could the prosecution prove, beyond all reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman (1) did not fear serious injury or death or (2) did not use reasonable force. The prosecution could not do this.

I've not disagreed with the way this case was found.

What I do disagree with is the notion that Zimmerman was acting in a completely responsible manner and did nothing wrong nor should he have done anything differently.

Moridin wrote:Zimmerman did not do anything illegal when pursuing Martin. In other words, that is completely irrelevant from a legal standpoint.

May want to look at that again. Assault is actually quite illegal.

purplerat wrote:As for what exactly happened immediately before and during the fight all we have are Zimmerman's words and know nothing about what Martin was thinking.

We have physical evidence. The injuries sustained by Zimmerman (e. g. back of the head) and Martin (bruised knuckles) is not consistent with the idea that Zimmerman was the primary aggressor against Martin. The injuries, however, are consistent with the position that Martin beat Zimmerman with his fists and smashed Zimmerman's head against the concrete sidewalk multiple times. The jury concluded that the prosecuting could not prove beyond all reasonable doubt that it was not self-defense.

Collector1337 wrote:Oh, yeah? Nice work totally ignoring all of Zimmerman's injuries.

Zimmerman was 100% justified in shooting Martin. This was proven in a court of law by his not guilty verdict.

Sure and everyone ever convicted of murder was always a 100% guilty, that's why no innocent people have ever been incarcerated or executed.

Moridin wrote:

Byron wrote:The state's star witness told a jury with five Caucasian women on it that she thinks it's OK to call white people crackers, and so did the person Zimmerman killed. As tumblr would no doubt say, for realz.

Whatever other evidence followed, I'm betting the prosecution case was lost right then.

You seem to be asserting that the jury could not view the evidence dispassionately and that the verdict was based on their alleged negative reaction to anti-white racism.

Tell us, what evidence can you present for that assertion?

None whatsoever, as it was a guess, expressed flippantly, not an assertion of fact. Hence the phrasing, "I'm betting." I'll say more formally that we don't know why the jury reached the verdict they did until one of them gives an interview.

lucek wrote:

Moridin wrote:Zimmerman did not do anything illegal when pursuing Martin. In other words, that is completely irrelevant from a legal standpoint.

May want to look at that again. Assault is actually quite illegal.

Walking after someone is not assault. If you are going to respond to me, make sure you actually understand what I write.

Byron wrote:

purplerat wrote:To be completely honest my take on the racial element of this case had nothing to do with Zimmerman. Rather that I don't believe police would have waited so long to arrest Zimmerman had Martin been a clean cut white kid wearing khakis and a polo shirt.

Based on what?

Regardless of whether it was a formal arrest, police took Zimmerman into custody at the scene, and interviewed him at length. He then, voluntarily, took part in a reconstruction.

Zimmerman wasn't arrested and charged because prosecutors and cops didn't think there was a case that'd hold-up in court. He was only indicted when an outside prosecutor was brought in. Judging by the prosecutorial horrorshow at his trial, with star billing given to a barely-coherent witness who causally used racial slurs and incriminated the alleged victim of the same, and forensics that corroborated the defense account to the letter, the original assessment was correct. This should never have gone to trial.

Prosecuting Zimmerman was a waste of the state's time and money, not to mention the stress and cost put on the acquitted person. It was only done after the case was seized on by the media, and became a focus for various agendas.

Furthermore had Zimmerman been a black man and killed the aforementioned hypothetical white kid I don't think there would have even been a trial. The DA would have come at him hard with the threat of 1st degree murder and execution then gotten a manslaughter plea.

Again, based on what? Does the relevant DA have a history of this behavior?

It's an issue across the country as a whole. I didn't mean specifically this police department or DA nor did I mean that a black George Zimmerman should have been prosecuted this way. But there are piles of evidence regarding racial imbalance in the US criminal justice system.

It's actually against the law to follow someone and Martin would have been jutsified completely in confronting him. I'm pretty sure I outlined why earlier on in this thread when the incident first occurred.

Byron wrote:

Moridin wrote:

Byron wrote:The state's star witness told a jury with five Caucasian women on it that she thinks it's OK to call white people crackers, and so did the person Zimmerman killed. As tumblr would no doubt say, for realz.

Whatever other evidence followed, I'm betting the prosecution case was lost right then.

You seem to be asserting that the jury could not view the evidence dispassionately and that the verdict was based on their alleged negative reaction to anti-white racism.

Tell us, what evidence can you present for that assertion?

None whatsoever, as it was a guess, expressed flippantly, not an assertion of fact. Hence the phrasing, "I'm betting." I'll say more formally that we don't know why the jury reached the verdict they did until one of them gives an interview.

"I'm betting X" suggests that you think that X is more probable than not. May I ask what line of reasoning lead you to this conclusion?

At any rate, your line of argument seems to be an attempt at undermining the conclusion reached by the jury. This is all well and good, but actual arguments and evidence is usually needed. Otherwise such an attempt will be met with skepticism.

Moridin wrote:

lucek wrote:

Moridin wrote:Zimmerman did not do anything illegal when pursuing Martin. In other words, that is completely irrelevant from a legal standpoint.

May want to look at that again. Assault is actually quite illegal.

Walking after someone is not assault. If you are going to respond to me, make sure you actually understand what I write.

FFS, can you guys stop changing relevant details about the incident. He wasn't merely walking after Martin. It's clear from Zimmerman's labored breathing and the sound of his footsteps that he was running or jogging after him. I mean really if you find his actions so defensible why the need to characterize or flat out change details about what happened?

purplerat wrote:It's an issue across the country as a whole. I didn't mean specifically this police department or DA nor did I mean that a black George Zimmerman should have been prosecuted this way. But there are piles of evidence regarding racial imbalance in the US criminal justice system.

But not, it appears, in this instance.

I'm still trying to rap my head around how shooting someone who's running away from you can be considered self-defense.

Moridin wrote:"I'm betting X" suggests that you think that X is more probable than not. May I ask what line of reasoning lead you to this conclusion?

None, as I wasn't making a probability judgment. Hence the flippancy.

At any rate, your line of argument seems to be an attempt at undermining the conclusion reached by the jury. This is all well and good, but actual arguments and evidence is usually needed. Otherwise such an attempt will be met with skepticism.

It was far more of a snark at the prosecution for having a case so flimsy they thought it was worth the risk to put such a joke of a witness on the stand.

Judging by the length of their deliberations, requests to see inventories of evidence, followed by requests for further instructions for Florida manslaughter law, all the available evidence points to a jury doing a diligent and unbiased job in the face of extraordinary pressure. All credit to them.

Acetone wrote:It's actually against the law to follow someone and Martin would have been jutsified completely in confronting him. I'm pretty sure I outlined why earlier on in this thread when the incident first occurred.

No, it is not illegal to walk after someone. You are confusing "walking after someone" with "stalking". Stalking is the repeated harassment and following of someone with the intent to instill fear or injury and not at all the same as walking after someone.

In other words, you are abusing and misusing a legal concept in an effort to prop up your position. I think most reasonable people easily see through that charade.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:I'm still trying to rap my head around how shooting someone who's running away from you can be considered self-defense.

Sorry, what does this other case have to do with the Zimmerman trial?

Moridin wrote:

Acetone wrote:It's actually against the law to follow someone and Martin would have been jutsified completely in confronting him. I'm pretty sure I outlined why earlier on in this thread when the incident first occurred.

No, it is not illegal to walk after someone. You are confusing "walking after someone" with "stalking". Stalking is the repeated harassment and following of someone with the intent to instill fear or injury and not at all the same as walking after someone.

In other words, you are abusing and misusing a legal concept in an effort to prop up your position. I think most reasonable people easily see through that charade.

Perhaps you should actually read the laws? And no, I'm not talking about stalking.

Moridin wrote:

Acetone wrote:It's actually against the law to follow someone and Martin would have been jutsified completely in confronting him. I'm pretty sure I outlined why earlier on in this thread when the incident first occurred.

No, it is not illegal to walk after someone. You are confusing "walking after someone" with "stalking". Stalking is the repeated harassment and following of someone with the intent to instill fear or injury and not at all the same as walking after someone.

In other words, you are abusing and misusing a legal concept in an effort to prop up your position. I think most reasonable people easily see through that charade.

As I suggested way earlier in the thread, if you really believe it's not a crime then go to a park or just walk around the streets in your neighborhood. Follow some kid around for a while and when they get scared and run away start chasing them. See how kindly the police take to that behavior.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:I'm still trying to rap my head around how shooting someone who's running away from you can be considered self-defense.

Zimmerman did not shot Martin while Martin was running away from Zimmerman. The evidence presented at the trial, together with the expert witnesses for the defense, suggests that Zimmerman shot Martin while Zimmerman was on the ground and Martin heavily leaned over him. This is consistent with the injuries sustained by Zimmerman and Martin, which points to Martin repeatedly bashing Zimmerman's head into the concrete sidewalk. If we believe Zimmerman's account (and the prosecution could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was false), Zimmerman was in a state of fear for his own life at that point. According to the self-defense laws of Florida, Zimmerman's actions were legally justified.