Trayvon Martin. Why are we not talking about this?

[CaprineSun]

I'm LIVID over this! That everything that has happened to this boy, his family, this case is even happening--- is even needing a public outcry to bring justice?! In 2012! And to think, if it was the other way around, if Zimmerman were the black man........

I know racial tensions in this country will never be totally eradicated, but it's SO MUCH MORE than that! It's about RIGHT & WRONG. Race aside, this MAN MURDERED an UNARMED BOY. And for WHAT?!

I'm angry, I'm frustrated, I'm seething, I'm crying.........

 

[Circe]

I'm with you.

Frederica Wilson's speech in the House was heartbreaking. I wish I could say I couldn't believe this was happening/how it was being handled, etc., etc., etc.

Instead, I'm just with you, and Rep. Wilson. So, so tired of this.

ETA: Link to her speech; http://jezebel.com/trayvon-martin/

 

[Gypsy]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/03/22/trayvon-martin-case-not-as-conclusive-as-people-think-says-legal-expert/

 

[Gypsy]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/03/22/trayvon-martin-case-not-as-conclusive-as-people-think-says-legal-expert/

I realize that I should have explained what I meant by that.

I think in this case all the public outcry is potentially counter productive. If the prosecutors really fear that they would not be able to secure a conviction on the evidence as it stands it is better that they DON'T prosecute right now.

Sorry, but it's my opinion. They should wait until they have enough evidence... I would not want to have double jeopardy bar a successful conviction if evidence becomes available too late.

Yes, the boy died. But what is the point of all this hue and cry if there is not enough evidence to convict his shooter? All that would result in is double jeopardy protecting the man if the prosecutors jump the gun.

The reason I'm not upset about this is because I think the public is hindering, not helping in this case. Too many people do not understand our justice system. All they want is revenge. They don't understand that our legal system isn't about revenge. It's about justice and there are laws in place to see that it is served. And those can work against a prosecutor... even in a high profile killing like this. Especially if the shooter has a half way competent defense attorney. And you can BET there are plenty lining up hoping to make a big name for themselves by getting this guy OFF, for free.

ETA: The question jurors are going to be asked to answer is: In those moments, with the limited information that the shooter had, was he reasonably justified in fearing for his life and therefore for defending himself by shooting his assailant. If the answer to that is going to be "yes he was reasonably justified," the the prosecution should not prosecute right now. That's all there is to it.

 

[CaprineSun]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/03/22/trayvon-martin-case-not-as-conclusive-as-people-think-says-legal-expert/

I realize that I should have explained what I meant by that.

I think in this case all the public outcry is potentially counter productive. If the prosecutors really fear that they would not be able to secure a conviction on the evidence as it stands it is better that they DON'T prosecute right now.

Sorry, but it's my opinion. They should wait until they have enough evidence... I would not want to have double jeopardy bar a successful conviction if evidence becomes available too late.

Yes, the boy died. But what is the point of all this hue and cry if there is not enough evidence to convict his shooter? All that would result in is double jeopardy protecting the man if the prosecutors jump the gun.

The reason I'm not upset about this is because I think the public is hindering, not helping in this case. Too many people do not understand our justice system. All they want is revenge. They don't understand that our legal system isn't about revenge. It's about justice and there are laws in place to see that it is served. And those can work against a prosecutor... even in a high profile killing like this. Especially if the shooter has a half way competent defense attorney. And you can BET there are plenty lining up hoping to make a big name for themselves by getting this guy OFF, for free.

ETA: The question jurors are going to be asked to answer is: In those moments, with the limited information that the shooter had, was he reasonably justified in fearing for his life and therefore for defending himself by shooting his assailant. If the answer to that is going to be "yes he was reasonably justified," the the prosecution should not prosecute right now. That's all there is to it.

@ the bolded: Okay........

And to your ETA, I do not understand how anyone can OBJECTIVELY say this man was justified in running after this boy, hunting him down, then shooting him point blank as the boy is HEARD pleading for his life. Okay........ It would make no sense for anyone to believe so EVEN if strongly considering that "stand your ground law".....

Unless said jurors have the same underlying feelings as Zimmerman.... and being black while wearing a hoodie makes anyone threatening.

 

[CaprineSun]

I do agree, however, that the prosecutors should dot all "I's" & cross all "T's". At the same time, I want more public outcry. It's time people, in general, stop glossing over injustices such as this. Injustice some may not realize happen EVERY DAY for certain parts of the population.

It's time a healthy & honest dialogue happens because although a critical turning point occurred in the Civil Rights Movement, I believe we all should bring ourselves to another turning point to further propel change that seems to have plateaued, forming a sense of complacency in some.

ETA: The public outcry serves more than just bringing about a prosecution. It should serve to bring about progress--- to make it that this boy (yet another boy) did not die in vain. To become a hallmark for the better relations that should soon exist.

 

[Mayk]

I am beside myself over this case.... This guy should have been arrested long ago! He took an unarmed boy's life...and then hid behind a law that is not clear... Add on to that I live on Florida... Thank God the Govenor Rick Scott got involved and appointed an outside prosecutor to take this case on... Angela Corey is awesome... I trust her to be sure justice is served. This child died for No Good Reason... Ok. I will climb down from my soap box...

 

[CaprineSun]

I'm with you.

Frederica Wilson's speech in the House was heartbreaking. I wish I could say I couldn't believe this was happening/how it was being handled, etc., etc., etc.

Instead, I'm just with you, and Rep. Wilson. So, so tired of this.

ETA: Link to her speech; http://jezebel.com/trayvon-martin/

Thank you, Circe for posting that video. You're right-- heartbreaking. Rep Wilson is right about all that has to be done just to get voices heard, let alone justice. So sad, so shameful. Our country should be ashamed.

 

[Gypsy]

I am beside myself over this case.... This guy should have been arrested long ago! He took an unarmed boy's life...and then hid behind a law that is not clear... Add on to that I live on Florida... Thank God the Govenor Rick Scott got involved and appointed an outside prosecutor to take this case on... Angela Corey is awesome... I trust her to be sure justice is served. This child died for No Good Reason... Ok. I will climb down from my soap box...

It doesn't matter that the boy was unarmed.

It doesn't.

All that matters is whether or not the shooter reasonably believed the boy was armed and that his life was in danger as a result. I'm not HAPPY about that. But it's not a reality I'm avoiding either.

As for running after the kid. Again, I'm not HAPPY about it. But there is that law, stand your ground, AND the man MIGHT HAVE (I'm talking about reasonable assumptions that the jury will be asked to evaluate) that the boy was running away only to come back when the guys back was turned and shoot him, or something. Whether or not that's a reasonable assumption will be up to a jury and will depend on what other facts surround such a belief that MIGHT justify the guy running after the kid. Again, it's a reality I'm not avoiding. I'm definitely not happy about it.

It's all a matter of "what information did the shooter have" and "what did he reasonably believe as a result of that information" whether that information was right or wrong is largely irrelevant.

 

[CaprineSun]

I am beside myself over this case.... This guy should have been arrested long ago! He took an unarmed boy's life...and then hid behind a law that is not clear... Add on to that I live on Florida... Thank God the Govenor Rick Scott got involved and appointed an outside prosecutor to take this case on... Angela Corey is awesome... I trust her to be sure justice is served. This child died for No Good Reason... Ok. I will climb down from my soap box...

It doesn't matter that the boy was unarmed.

It doesn't.

All that matters is whether or not the shooter reasonably believed the boy was armed and that his life was in danger as a result. I'm not HAPPY about that. But it's not a reality I'm avoiding either.

As for running after this. Again, I'm not HAPPY about it. But there is that law, stand your ground, AND the man MIGHT HAVE (I'm talking about reasonable assumptions that the jury will be asked to evaluate) that the boy was running away only to come back when the guys back was turned and shoot him. Again, it's a reality I'm not avoiding.

It's all a matter of "what information did the shooter have" and "what did he reasonably believe as a result of that information" whether that information was right or wrong is largely irrelevant.

At your bolded, I have to Really? Those assumptions would be reasonable? Really? Especially after hearing the 911 tape?

And this 'reasonable' assumption that he would RUN AWAY scared only to trick the man & come back and shoot him (also, then assuming he was armed) would be based on what?...... That he was black? That he was a black boy wearing a hoodie? That he was a black boy wearing a hoodie walking through his neighborhood? That he was a black boy wearing a hoodie walking through his neighborhood minding his own business on the phone, who made NO advancements towards the man?

 

[luv2sparkle]

It should matter that the boy was unarmed. There have been police officers who have been charged for shooting an unarmed person.
I feel so sad and upset for his family. I can't imagine the pain of all of this for them.

There should be outrage at injustice. What kind of people would we be without it? Protests and public anger do no good, I agree. But I would think it would be some comfort to the family to know that people care about what happened to their son, even if it doesn't make a single bit of difference in the legal system.

 

[Circe]

Gyps, my first thought on your last post was "Amadou Diallo." As I recalled, the officers who shot him were acquitted of his death, on the grounds that their suspicion was reasonable (I have severe issues with that, but, moving on): the city of New York, however, wound up settling with Diallo's family to the tune of 3 million dollars. Because there IS something deeply wrong with shooting an unarmed man.

And it does matter.

But I decided to double-check my facts ... for once, the Wiki writers went above and beyond. They included a recent study in the little "Consequences" section: here's the pertinent bit;

The event spurred subsequent social psychology research. A number of experiments have conducted with both undergraduate volunteers and police officers playing a computer game where they must choose whether to shoot or not to shoot a target who may be white or black, on the basis of whether or not they are armed. Such studies find that participants made slower and less accurate decisions on whether to shoot an unarmed black target than an unarmed white target, and were quicker and more likely to correctly decide to shoot an armed black target than an armed white target.

All grief and outrage over Martin himself aside - though he does deserve it, there can be no doubt - the bigger issue here is the endemic fear of black men, and the consequent danger that they face just going about their business in this society.

 

[Gypsy]

Ignoring the video, and listening only to the audio... there's plenty of doubt about what went on, I'm sorry. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8rws30uASw And it's clear that George did suspect that the kid had a gun.

It kinda all hinges on... who was calling for help? Witnesses don't know-- they are guessing. George says it was HIM asking for help and he stopped once he fired the gun. If it was Trayvon calling for help, that different. But WHO was it? And how will we know?

Clearly the prosecutors do not KNOW who was calling for help. And FEAR the juror's will believe it was George. Which might lead to an acquittal. If it was obvious that it was Trayvon, they would have arrested George already.


And... I'm sorry but if RACE isn't an issue, why did the COPS ask the question and PUT that fear in the man's head. George didn't volunteer the race information. The COPS made it relevant. So... are the COPS to blame for this in part?

 

[Circe]

... is this a trick question?

Here's the full transcript of the call: http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman.html#document/p2/a49098

The dispatcher appears to have been attempting to get a description before Zimmerman went off the rails. I've placed 911 calls: I bet the next step would have been to ask about height, weight, etc., except the paranoid bigot on the other end of the line preempted it.

I do feel like it's a trifle disingenuous to imply race wasn't a factor here. Given that Martin wasn't, oh, peeking in windows or jimmying doors, aside from being black in the gated community, exactly what kind of "suspicious" behavior was he engaging in? The thing that raised suspicion was his not fitting the typical demographic - i.e., belonging to a different ethnicity.

P.S. - We know Zimmerman had a history of racial obsession, abuse, and pretending to be a victim ... right?

 

[CaprineSun]

Even IF it was Zimmerman who called for help. Let's just say, for the sake of argument, it really was Zimmerman who called for help. Assuming there was a struggle with the boy. It was AFTER he chased this boy down with a GUN in his hand. In THAT case, the boy was acting in self-defense and Zimmerman would STILL be in the wrong for shooting him!

I mean, really, what did Zimmerman hope the outcome would be when he decided to chase down a boy (who was doing NOTHING wrong) armed with a gun? And AFTER he was told not at that?

And, further, if the boy had acted in self-defense and harmed Zimmerman in any way and were still alive, someone would be in jail by now! And questions would have been asked later.

 

[Gypsy]

It should matter that the boy was unarmed. There have been police officers who have been charged for shooting an unarmed person.
I feel so sad and upset for his family. I can't imagine the pain of all of this for them.

There should be outrage at injustice. What kind of people would we be without it? Protests and public anger do no good, I agree. But I would think it would be some comfort to the family to know that people care about what happened to their son, even if it doesn't make a single bit of difference in the legal system.

That's an example that proves my point, not yours. What's REASONABLE for a trained police offer who is required BY LAW to announce himself AND tell the person to PUT THEIR HANDS UP is very different for what is REASONABLE for a guy with NO training, who is put in a situation that is outside his experience, and who is running on adrenaline, and who isn't REQUIRED to do ANYTHING if he fears for his life except defend himself.

This type of ignorance is exactly what I'm talking about. THIS post is why the public outcry is NO HELP at all. Because the people outcrying have NO CLUE what they are talking about.

 

[Circe]

It should matter that the boy was unarmed. There have been police officers who have been charged for shooting an unarmed person.
I feel so sad and upset for his family. I can't imagine the pain of all of this for them.

There should be outrage at injustice. What kind of people would we be without it? Protests and public anger do no good, I agree. But I would think it would be some comfort to the family to know that people care about what happened to their son, even if it doesn't make a single bit of difference in the legal system.

That's an example that proves my point, not yours. What's REASONABLE for a trained police offer who is required BY LAW to announce himself AND tell the person to PUT THEIR HANDS UP is very different for what is REASONABLE for a guy with NO training, who is put in a situation that is outside his experience, and who is running on adrenaline, and who isn't REQUIRED to do ANYTHING if he fears for his life except defend himself.

This type of ignorance is exactly what I'm talking about. THIS post is why the public outcry is NO HELP at all. Because the people outcrying have NO CLUE what they are talking about.

"Is put in a situation?" While I like the passive voice as much as the next girl, this is a misleading description. Zimmerman followed him for blocks. And after being told NOT to by the dispatcher, no less.

 

[Gypsy]

Gyps, my first thought on your last post was "Amadou Diallo." As I recalled, the officers who shot him were acquitted of his death, on the grounds that their suspicion was reasonable (I have severe issues with that, but, moving on): the city of New York, however, wound up settling with Diallo's family to the tune of 3 million dollars. Because there IS something deeply wrong with shooting an unarmed man.

And it does matter.

NO. It does not matter IN CRIMINAL COURT. Again, and example that proves MY point. Not yours. Why? Because that statement shows that you may not understand that the burden of proof is different in criminal cases rather than civil cases.

CRIMINAL CASES require PROOF BEYOND A reasonable doubt to convict. Therefore the fact that the shooter MIGHT HAVE believed the kid was armed would provide REASONABLE DOUBT.

CIVIL cases require preponderance of evidence to prove guilt. Which is a MUCH MUCH LOWER standard of proof. Which means that it is much easier.

So yes, MANY times there are going to be cases that you can prove something in civil cases that you CANNOT prove in Criminal court. That's not evidence of anything.

Also in MANY civil cases you only need to prove your case to a SIMPLE majority to win. In criminal cases you need a UNANIMOUS verdict. Why...because what is at stake is LIFE and LIBERTY in criminal cases. What's at stake with civil cases is only property. The protections are different as a result.

Again... this only proves how the public doesn't UNDERSTAND what is going on, what the prosecutor's KNOW and what the public is either ignorant of or choosing to ignore. Which is why the public is not HELPING.

 

[Gypsy]

It should matter that the boy was unarmed. There have been police officers who have been charged for shooting an unarmed person.
I feel so sad and upset for his family. I can't imagine the pain of all of this for them.

There should be outrage at injustice. What kind of people would we be without it? Protests and public anger do no good, I agree. But I would think it would be some comfort to the family to know that people care about what happened to their son, even if it doesn't make a single bit of difference in the legal system.

That's an example that proves my point, not yours. What's REASONABLE for a trained police offer who is required BY LAW to announce himself AND tell the person to PUT THEIR HANDS UP is very different for what is REASONABLE for a guy with NO training, who is put in a situation that is outside his experience, and who is running on adrenaline, and who isn't REQUIRED to do ANYTHING if he fears for his life except defend himself.

This type of ignorance is exactly what I'm talking about. THIS post is why the public outcry is NO HELP at all. Because the people outcrying have NO CLUE what they are talking about.

"Is put in a situation?" While I like the passive voice as much as the next girl, this is a misleading description. Zimmerman followed him for blocks. And after being told NOT to by the dispatcher, no less.

Nope. He wasn't TOLD NOT TO by a dispatcher. Listen to the tape. The officer says, "We don't NEED YOU TO DO THAT."

That's VERY DIFFERENT, and MUCH more permissive than, "SIR, DO NOT FOLLOW THAT MAN."

And a JURY could easily be swayed to see that it was NOT a NO. That is was so UNCLEAR as to be irrelevant. All it takes is a good defense attorney.

Now, if you want to talk about all the ways the DISPATCHER screwed up, I'd be happy to. Cause what really stuck out for me was how BADLY the dispatcher contributed to this fiasco.

As for passive voice, Fine He put himself into a bad situation. STRING HIM UP. Oh wait? People do THAT everyday. Not cause for arrest.

 

[CaprineSun]

That's an example that proves my point, not yours. What's REASONABLE for a trained police offer who is required BY LAW to announce himself AND tell the person to PUT THEIR HANDS UP is very different for what is REASONABLE for a guy with NO training, who is put in a situation that is outside his experience, and who is running on adrenaline, and who isn't REQUIRED to do ANYTHING if he fears for his life except defend himself.

This type of ignorance is exactly what I'm talking about. THIS post is why the public outcry is NO HELP at all. Because the people outcrying have NO CLUE what they are talking about.

You slay me. Put in a situation? Please, Gypsy tell us all what "situation" you believe this man was put in?

And re: the public outcry & "ignorant" posters, I will post again:

1. The public outcry serves more than just bringing about a prosecution. It should serve to bring about progress--- to make it that this boy (yet another boy) did not die in vain. To become a hallmark for the better relations that should soon exist.

and

2. If it weren't for the public outcry, the lights in this situation wouldn't have been turned on, the SLOPPINESS and lackadaisical manner with which the police dpt initially treated this boy's life would STILL be occurring, one of the top officials in the police dpt wouldn't have temporarily resigned, DoJ likely wouldn't have gotten involved, prosecutors NOW and others working on the case likely wouldn't be EXTRA careful with how they proceed to ensure things are being done in a properly manner.

Public outcry should have NO HINDRANCE on the proceedings that occur within the legal system of professional & supposedly 'competent' lawyers, judges, police officers, etc. If anything, it should put pressure on their backs to act judiciously and do it the RIGHT way the FIRST time.

 

[Gypsy]

Even IF it was Zimmerman who called for help. Let's just say, for the sake of argument, it really was Zimmerman who called for help. Assuming there was a struggle with the boy. It was AFTER he chased this boy down with a GUN in his hand. In THAT case, the boy was acting in self-defense and Zimmerman would STILL be in the wrong for shooting him!

I mean, really, what did Zimmerman hope the outcome would be when he decided to chase down a boy (who was doing NOTHING wrong) armed with a gun? And AFTER he was told not at that?

And, further, if the boy had acted in self-defense and harmed Zimmerman in any way and were still alive, someone would be in jail by now! And questions would have been asked later.

Again, he was NOT told not to. He was told "we don't need you to do that." Very different.

And the point isn't that the kid was doing nothing wrong. The point is: Was Zimmerman REASONABLE in thinking that the kid was doing something wrong AND that he was a threat."

You clearly feel that he was NOT. The reason the man has not been arrested yet is that CLEARLY the issue is not as easy once you look at the actual facts.

Yours and Circe's MISREPRESENTATION of what the dispatcher told George is why it is EASY to convict a man in the media, but DIFFICULT to do so in trial where the REAL facts, the REAL words that were spoken are presented and then debated by the two sides.

Again... this is why the media attention and the public are NOT HELPING. Because they are ignorant and sensational. It is EASY to be sensational. It is hard to be factual.

 

[CaprineSun]

Even IF it was Zimmerman who called for help. Let's just say, for the sake of argument, it really was Zimmerman who called for help. Assuming there was a struggle with the boy. It was AFTER he chased this boy down with a GUN in his hand. In THAT case, the boy was acting in self-defense and Zimmerman would STILL be in the wrong for shooting him!

I mean, really, what did Zimmerman hope the outcome would be when he decided to chase down a boy (who was doing NOTHING wrong) armed with a gun? And AFTER he was told not at that?

And, further, if the boy had acted in self-defense and harmed Zimmerman in any way and were still alive, someone would be in jail by now! And questions would have been asked later.

Again, he was NOT told not to. He was told "we don't need you to do that." Very different.

And the point isn't that the kid was doing nothing wrong. The point is: Was Zimmerman REASONABLE in thinking that the kid was doing something wrong AND that he was a threat."

You clearly feel that he was NOT. The reason the man has not been arrested yet is that CLEARLY the issue is not as easy once you look at the actual facts.

Yours and Circe's MISREPRESENTATION of what the dispatcher told George is why it is EASY to convict a man in the media, but DIFFICULT to do so in trial where the REAL facts, the REAL words that were spoken are presented and then debated by the two sides.

Again... this is why the media attention and the public are NOT HELPING. Because they are ignorant.

There's no misinterpretation despite whatever you have read & seem to be eating up so well.

You throw around the word ignorant many times here at others-- I feel it's more like your boomerang.

Brings many things into question-- including your legal background.

 

[Circe]

We appear to be arguing two completely different arguments.

As far as I can tell, you're, a) arguing in defense of the prosecutor's laxity, which I might not agree with, but which I'm willing to let lie, and, b) in defense of Zimmerman, where I can only assume you like playing devil's advocate, as events appear to be fairly straightforward.

The part I'm arguing is that, yeah, race is a great big goddam deal in America, it's been a factor in shooting after shooting after shooting, it was likely a big part of Zimmerman's motivation, and I'm sadly pretty certain that it's playing a part in the decision-making process at the prosecutors office.

We appear to be overlapping infinitesimally in parts, but ... let's clarify the terms before going any further, mkay?

 

[Gypsy]

Um, you mean the fact that I have a JD and have passed both the NY and NJ bar exams? Is that what you are referring to Twinkle?

Have you actually WATCHED a real criminal murder trial? I'm not talking about Law and Order or CSI. I mean a real, boring, days long murder trial. The ACTUAL facts matter. And so does the difference between "NO, DO NOT DO THAT" and "We don't need you to do that."

 

[Gypsy]

We appear to be arguing two completely different arguments.

As far as I can tell, you're, a) arguing in defense of the prosecutor's laxity, which I might not agree with, but which I'm willing to let lie, and, b) in defense of Zimmerman, where I can only assume you like playing devil's advocate, as events appear to be fairly straightforward.

The part I'm arguing is that, yeah, race is a great big goddam deal in America, it's been a factor in shooting after shooting after shooting, it was likely a big part of Zimmerman's motivation, and I'm sadly pretty certain that it's playing a part in the decision-making process at the prosecutors office.

We appear to be overlapping infinitesimally in parts, but ... let's clarify the terms before going any further, mkay?

My arguments are: I don't think that the prosecutor is being lax at all. There is no proof of that. And the media and public pressuring the prosecution to a trial when there is insufficient evidence to convict is a BAD THING. There is plenty of proof that the media and public perceive this, but no actual proof that it's based on reality. And a special prosecutor being appointed only shows the the governor understands the power of the media. Not that there is actually some justification for it.

And: I do not see that race played any part in this. Unless you are talking about the dispatcher.

Yes, in America race is a big deal. But Zimmerman is a half latino man. He is NOT America. We have no idea what his motivations were. But I BET the prosecutor does. And if it was as clear cut as a hate crime the man would be awaiting trial RIGHT NOW. So it's NOT that clear cut.

 

[Gypsy]

Circe, what I SHOULD clarify is:

I DO think public outcry against racially motivated violence is a good thing. It is an agent for change. And that's positive. I live 30 minutes away from Oakland. I am devastated by what I hear on the news. But I don't make the mistake of thinking that EVERY TIME there is a white person and a black person on opposite sides of a conflict that racial motivation is a given. Because that's JUST as racist as the opposite position that ignores race.

What I disagree with is arm chair quarterbacks forcing legal professionals into rash decisions. The public DEMANDING a trail when they clearly do not understand what the burden of proof the prosecution has is at a trial. And who interpret facts as they want and convict a man in the media, and think that a trial is going to be as easy. Who seem to be ignoring the fact that IN A TRIAL George won't have to PROVE his innocence. All he has to do is poke doubt. It's the prosecution who has to PROVE guilt. And that if they SCREW THAT UP: Double jeopardy would protect that man. As a result: the prosecution is SUPPOSED to be responsible when they bring cases to trial. And the media and public who are ignorantly demanding a trail might actually be HARMING the cause justice in their ignorant sensationalism are therefore being IRRESPONSIBLE.

 

[beebrisk]

That's an example that proves my point, not yours. What's REASONABLE for a trained police offer who is required BY LAW to announce himself AND tell the person to PUT THEIR HANDS UP is very different for what is REASONABLE for a guy with NO training, who is put in a situation that is outside his experience, and who is running on adrenaline, and who isn't REQUIRED to do ANYTHING if he fears for his life except defend himself.

This type of ignorance is exactly what I'm talking about. THIS post is why the public outcry is NO HELP at all. Because the people outcrying have NO CLUE what they are talking about.

You slay me. Put in a situation? Please, Gypsy tell us all what "situation" you believe this man was put in?

And re: the public outcry & "ignorant" posters, I will post again:

1. The public outcry serves more than just bringing about a prosecution. It should serve to bring about progress--- to make it that this boy (yet another boy) did not die in vain. To become a hallmark for the better relations that should soon exist.

and

2. If it weren't for the public outcry, the lights in this situation wouldn't have been turned on, the SLOPPINESS and lackadaisical manner with which the police dpt initially treated this boy's life would STILL be occurring, one of the top officials in the police dpt wouldn't have temporarily resigned, DoJ likely wouldn't have gotten involved, prosecutors NOW and others working on the case likely wouldn't be EXTRA careful with how they proceed to ensure things are being done in a properly manner.

Public outcry should have NO HINDRANCE on the proceedings that occur within the legal system of professional & supposedly 'competent' lawyers, judges, police officers, etc. If anything, it should put pressure on their backs to act judiciously and do it the RIGHT way the FIRST time.

Gypsy is absolutely right.

You are assuming that this was a racial crime without knowing any of the facts of the case except what you've seen and heard on TV news.

Well, congratulations. You have just tried and convicted a man without a shred of evidence. You might want to think about how your life would be impacted if you were on trial and the jury concocted an entire scenario around your actions without any regard to the facts..

Twinkle, there's a huge difference between "justice" and "revenge".

 

[Gypsy]

P.S. - We know Zimmerman had a history of racial obsession, abuse, and pretending to be a victim ... right?

Circe-- how do we know this? How do we know this isn't more misrepresentation and sensationalism. I mean really?

We have a WRITTEN TRANSCRIPT of the 911 call. And STILL Twinkle thinks I'm wrong when I say that the dispatcher did NOT say NO.


I'm just asking because so MUCH depends on interpretation not just facts. I'm not denying that it might be true that the guy might be racist. Heck it could even be UNDERrepresented. I mean the guy could be part of some weird skin head latino anti negro underground movement for all I know. But that's the point. Easy to convict in the media, hard to convict in a court of law.

 

[CaprineSun]

That's an example that proves my point, not yours. What's REASONABLE for a trained police offer who is required BY LAW to announce himself AND tell the person to PUT THEIR HANDS UP is very different for what is REASONABLE for a guy with NO training, who is put in a situation that is outside his experience, and who is running on adrenaline, and who isn't REQUIRED to do ANYTHING if he fears for his life except defend himself.

This type of ignorance is exactly what I'm talking about. THIS post is why the public outcry is NO HELP at all. Because the people outcrying have NO CLUE what they are talking about.

You slay me. Put in a situation? Please, Gypsy tell us all what "situation" you believe this man was put in?

And re: the public outcry & "ignorant" posters, I will post again:

1. The public outcry serves more than just bringing about a prosecution. It should serve to bring about progress--- to make it that this boy (yet another boy) did not die in vain. To become a hallmark for the better relations that should soon exist.

and

2. If it weren't for the public outcry, the lights in this situation wouldn't have been turned on, the SLOPPINESS and lackadaisical manner with which the police dpt initially treated this boy's life would STILL be occurring, one of the top officials in the police dpt wouldn't have temporarily resigned, DoJ likely wouldn't have gotten involved, prosecutors NOW and others working on the case likely wouldn't be EXTRA careful with how they proceed to ensure things are being done in a properly manner.

Public outcry should have NO HINDRANCE on the proceedings that occur within the legal system of professional & supposedly 'competent' lawyers, judges, police officers, etc. If anything, it should put pressure on their backs to act judiciously and do it the RIGHT way the FIRST time.

Gypsy is absolutely right.

You are assuming that this was a racial crime without knowing any of the facts of the case except what you've seen and heard on TV news.

Well, congratulations. You have just tried and convicted a man without a shred of evidence. You might want to think about how your life would be impacted if you were on trial and the jury concocted an entire scenario around your actions without any regard to the facts..

Twinkle, there's a huge difference between "justice" and "revenge".

I have to work in the morning, but to your entire post: NO.

A little further, unless the actual 911 call was altered by the media, this man's account of the events are NOT corroborated by the tape. Regard for the FACTS, regard for a better INVESTIGATION is part of what the 'ignorant' public outcry is asking for.

And, the notion this act was not even MARGINALLY racially motivated is ludicrous.

 

[littlelysser]

I simply do not understand those that are decrying the public discussion and outcry. You can argue law, standards of proof, and reasonableness - but it is difficult to get around the objective facts. An unarmed boy was shot by a man that was following him, for no good reason, after he was told by a 911 operator that he did not need to follow the individual. Those facts alone make this one which should have resulted in a thorough investigation. And it did not. Regardless of whether Zimmerman is legally guilty of a crime, what happened was absolutely awful and horrifying.

That being said, I don't think anyone is arguing that we have all the facts or that Zimmerman should be put on trial tomorrow. The events of that evening were not properly investigated and that is being remedied, finally. Had this case not gotten the publicity it did, I feel a travesty of justice would have occurred.

And of course facts matter. As do the relevant legal standards and procedures, of which Mr. Zimmerman will undoubtedly and rightfully take full advantage of.

I do want to clarify a couple things - double jeopardy does not attach until a jury is empaneled. As those that have been involved in any form of litigation, criminal or otherwise, know that takes a significant amount of time, despite the right to a speedy trial. And although I'm a bit rusty on my crim pro, I believe a person can be arrested or detained for a crime more than once. And of course, an investigation has absolutely no double jeopardy implications, either.

And the reasonable standard you've been referring to is an objective standard. What would an everyman do in that situation? I am not familiar with the nuances of the stand your ground law, but I can't imagine that it allows one to threaten a person/follow[harass an individual and then murder them because you fear for your life.